Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:External links. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

External links in academic journal articles, again

I would appreciate to hear the opinion of editors here on this edit. I don't see what is wrong with the "official template" and I think that the second link to the association's website is superfluous (and against the spirit and letter of WP:ELNO#19. I have raised this issue with Headbomb, his response is on his talk page. There is also a previous discussion on this noticeboard here, with a somewhat inconclusive ending. Perhaps we can get to a clearer result this time. --Crusio (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm getting tired of arguing over the color of the bike shed. There's nothing wrong with having links like these so it would be nice if you didn't keep converting them to your personal preference. WP:ELNO#EL19 does not argue, neither in letter or in spirit, against these links, and WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL supports their presence. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Neither ELYES nor ELOFFICIAL support your position. The link you are adding goes to the main page of the association, which can easily be reached from the official journal page (another no-no for external links). If a journal is published by a commercial publisher, we delete any links to the publisher's website as a matter of course (calling it a spamlink), I don't see why this is any different. --Crusio (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We delete links to publishers like Elsevier on a journal like Annals of Emergency Medicine because there is no strong association between Annals of Emergency Medicine and Elsevier. Journal of the British Astronomical Association obviously a strong connection to the British Astronomical Association, just like Experimental Hematology has a strong link to the Society for Hematology and Stem Cells. And that's why we have them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with Crusio's assertion that a link to the owner/sponsor of the publication is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL19. I believe that should be amply clear to anyone who reads the footnote associated with it. ELNO #19 is meant to stop links to organizations that merely happen to be mentioned in passing, not those who have a strong, direct, and obvious connection to the subject matter.

Personally, I don't care for the generic label that {{Official website}} produces. I think that the actual name of the website ("Coca-Cola, Inc.") is more informative than "Official website". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think all links described are reasonable. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agre with Jfd. The back ground of a journal matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I did not express myself clear here. Of course the background of a journal matters. That's why in the body of an article we tell the reader who the publisher is (whether commercial or a society) and wikilink to the article on that publisher (which should have an external link to the homepage of the publisher). This is also being done in the present case. In the journal article itself, we provide an external link to the journal homepage. In the previous discussion, WhatamIdoing suggested to also link to the journal page on the website of the society, if such existed, in addition to a page on the website of a commercial publisher. In this case, however, there is only a page for the journal on the website of the association, and this has been linked. Headbomb insists on additionally linking to the main page on the same site. (Anybody who goes to the journal page can easily get to the main page by clicking "home" in the upper left corner). I think this is overdone and against the EL policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher "Broadway" Romero

Could someone please sort out Christopher "Broadway" Romero - it has loads of YouTube links; I don't have the time to fix it myself, right now. Chzz ► 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

List of trade unions

List_of_trade_unions
So many external links make this page look like an internet directory. It is unnecessary because the individual pages have a webpage link. Is this acceptable? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

External links to Arkive.org

As part of Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive, links to Arkive.org are placed on every page we update with this website. There is concern that many of these links may not meet WP:EL as they don't provide much content beyond the scope of our articles. There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Birds that needs to come to a consensus, so more participation is welcome. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#External links to Arkive. Them From Space 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

teachlearnrepeat.com

I am interested in receiving input from others as to the appropriateness of this URL. Links to a quiz site have been added to multiple articles by TLRkahuna (talk · contribs). They do not wish to accept my explanation for why the links are not appropriate, and not taking my advice to bring the discussion here for a larger audience, so I'm bringing it here for them so that others can comment on it.

The links are to quizzes about the article subject at http://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/ - the site's main landing page describes itself as "a web site dedicated to providing free online apps that allow anyone to create their own quizzes, tests, assessments, drills, tutorials, courses and more." ... "We should be ready to sign up lifetime learners with free accounts sometime in August. With an account, you'll be able to sign on and begin creating your own content..."

My argument is that the links fail both WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL (specifically not meeting WP:ELYES nor WP:ELMAYBE), and the links are actually being added to help promote the launch of that site. Their argument is that providing the quizzes benefits readers of Wikipedia in their learning of the material.

Thank you in advance for your comments/feedback regarding the URL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I added the links, and the links do not go the home page of TeachLearnRepeat.com, they are deep links that go directly to the quizzes that were created with the express purpose of supplementing the material of the page on which they were based. Someone clicking on the Wikipedia link that I had established would not go to the home page, they get right into the quiz. Here are the links that were deleted:

E-Learning

[hxxp://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/wiki/en/s/w/i/t/z/Switzerland TeachLearnRepeat.com], assess your knowledge on Switzerland

E-Learning

[hxxp://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/wiki/en/m/e/x/i/c/Mexico_City TeachLearnRepeat.com], assess your knowledge on Mexico City

E-Learning

[hxxp://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/wiki/en/h/o/u/s/t/Houston TeachLearnRepeat.com], assess your knowledge on Houston

E-Learning

[hxxp://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/wiki/en/h/u/r/r/i/Hurricane TeachLearnRepeat.com], assess your knowledge on Hurricanes

E-Learning

[hxxp://www.teachlearnrepeat.com/wiki/en/s/p/a/c/e/Space_Shuttle_program TeachLearnRepeat.com], assess your knowledge on the Space Shuttle program — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

While the concept is kind of neat, these links do not meet the requirements at WP:EL. The articles are meant to be learning resources themselves, not places to link to teaching aids. ~~As the links are apparently being added as part of the beta-testing by an account related to the site, I'd say double no.~~ The Interior (Talk) 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but just to clarify they were not added as part of beta-testing, the site has been live for a year-and-a-half. The beta testing referred to on the home page is for "public use" of the ability to "construct quizzes" not use quizzes. The site has nearly 50 e-learning affinity members who have been singly granted access to create material. Most of it is private, but the ability to create a public quiz has been in there from the beginning. The quiz type WikiLearnRepeat was constructed as a way to distinguish public quizzes expressly designed for Wikipedia articles, as opposed to public quizzes for any other web sites content. The content will exist with or without a Wikipedia page link, but without it, then only a site visitor to TeachLearnRepeat would benefit. With it, visitors to Wikipedia directly can benefit. If the concept is so new it needs explanation, I will be happy to explain it. If it's rejected I would love it if it was rejected based on it's lack of merit alone, and not a misunderstanding that it has anything to do with a site launch. Additionally, I agree that the articles are meant to be learning resources themselves, however if an external link can support and extend the learning resource in a way that cannot be accomplished within the Wikipedia article framework as currently defined, it would be a benefit to the Wikimedia learner. Sure, in a perfect world this kind of content would be available directly on Wikipedia - you shouldn't have to use an external web site, tool, or link. But they lack the manpower, servers, bandwidth, etc. to implement everything they could be doing to extend their world, and that's when external sites step in to offer ideas, solutions and content. When I added the link, I drew on, and took a lot of inspiration from, this quote from the Wikimedia linking guidelines, "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link." I don't know how a reader of the articles linked wouldn't benefit by the links, if they so chose to follow them. If the argument comes down to that there honestly is little or no benefit to the Wikimedia visitor from the links, then I will step aside and drop it. I'm not hearing that yet, so I am willing to explore the content and intent to a greater degree if it will help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TLRkahuna, you are quite right that the timing of the link placement should not determine an evaluation of its merits. However, the relationship you are describing between TLR and Wikipedia is something the community at large (and possibly the Wikimedia Foundation) would have to have consensus on. Have you considered using a community-wide noticeboard such as the WP:Village pump to discuss TLR? The Interior (Talk) 04:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not considered it to this point, because until yesterday the links were fine. I'm still gathering my thoughts on this since it has been less than 24 hours since it became the issue it has become. Nothing would be better than a blessing from the Wikimedia Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The Interior. After a walk, I thought more about your suggestion, and I feel that to present it in that forum you mentioned, I really need a Wikipedia champion or two in my corner first. I envision people that have been working with and/or in Wikipedia for a long time that understand how those kinds of approaches tend to succeed or fail, because they understand the political nature of the process. I consider this topic that Barek started for me as my request to find such a champion. If you are out there reading this, I would love to give any information I can provide here in this topic that would help us go in there as a team to discuss the value that I believe these links would add to the experience of the Wikipedia visitor. Going in there alone I am afraid, I would be like a little lost sheep in a biosphere with those who are experts at carving up a leg of lamb. When the discussion constantly turns back to be about my motive(s)) for adding a link, instead of the merits of the information found at the link as it relates to a Wikipedia user's experience, I know that I need a champion within the Wikimedia community.

A champion would also know how to best navigate the External Linking document. I imagine when it was first created it was much shorter and more conciae, but it has grown to the point where, if you want to use it in an exclusionary fashion, you can justify deleting nearly every external link on Wikipedia. However, regardless of how it grew to its current size and complexity, I believe the spirit of that document originally was, "Let's find a way to keep external links of little or no value out of Wikipedia," a sentiment and an ideal no one would argue with.

If you believe that Wikipedia will benefit from people adding value externally to the Wikipedia experience that cannot be added internally as the site exists today, please chime in with your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

teachlearnrepeat.com links

Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and content is essentially self-published
Clearly being added for the sole purpose to promote and increase page views for teachlearnrepeat.com
Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

Additional problems

SPAM
- External link spamming
External links policy
- Links normally to be avoided
- Advertising and conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest
- Editors who have a conflict of interest
- Accounts used for promotion
What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Persistent spamming
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I'd really like help assessing merit.

I understand that you can pull out a half-dozen to two dozen linking rule violations and apply it to virtually every link on Wikipedia. I get it. Yet, you can find companies such as Wikitravel who have hundreds of links on Wikipedia who violate all of Hu12 rules, the number one being "Clearly being added for the sole purpose to promote and increase page views for Wikitravel.org", and on down the list (not just external links either, but links within the body of the articles).

As "The Interior" and others have mentioned, there are clearly exceptions granted for this kind of thing that let a company like Wikitravel.org link with all those violations and steer clear of any editors desire to remove their links - a free pass as it were. Perhaps 6-7 years ago they went through community-wide noticeboard such as the WP:Village pump and got their exception noted, and at that point they were exempt from deletion/editing and could add their travel links to every country, town, city, village Wiki page. There had to be a point or a moment in which it was agreed that in spite of violating two dozen linking rules that the benefit to the Wikipedia visitor was great enough to override the rules. I don't know how it happened, but it happened, and it could be the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, WikiTravel clearly meets the requirements of WP:ELYES. No one has been given a free pass. Your choice to intentionally misinterpret policies and guidelines does not change the fact that your added links clearly fail WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of WL:ELYES is that, he asked rhetorically. They don't fit Point #1 or Point #2. Point #3 of WL:ELYES states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding..." while en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WikiTravel on the other hand states "Wikitravel does not have a neutral-point-of-view requirement". It fits WL:ELYES if you decide not to read WL:ELYES and decide not to match it against Wikitravel's own requirements and guidelines.

Again, off-point what I was hoping to accomplish here - like "The Interior" pointed out, the community can, through consensus, say take 'em, so they take 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiTravel not having a NPOV policy is not the same as not being neutrally written. They do have a "be fair" policy, which they define as "The idea of "being fair" is this: We don't have any agenda on Wikitravel. We are not advocating any religion, political philosophy, environmental practice, feminist theory, international language, home cooking device, tour company, or any other idea, business, or cause." When the link has been questioned in the past, their "be fair" requirement has been deemed sufficient to meet the lower threshold of neutrally written (granted, I can only find a handful of times in the past that link has been questioned, although I didn't spend very long searching).

Regardless, you are once again reverting to the "other stuff exists" argument, instead of the merits of your link - which clearly fail any inclusion criteria, and which has been repeated now by multiple other parties.

However, as to your current strategy to skirt around that failure ... if you truly want "champions" to take the issue to the Village Pump, your best bet is to locate a relevant WikiProject which might contain established editors who have a goal that might be compatible with adding your site. Offhand, I can't think of one ... but I included the link to the category directory where they can all be found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TLrKahuna, you have remember what Wikipedians value most here, and that is information. A link that is shaky on some of the points of ELYES but still offers valuable info may well be included by consensus. But I'm afraid TRL, despite being a good learning resource, does not offer readers any new information on a topic. It may help with retention, but that isn't really our mandate. Personally, I wouldn't be able to support its inclusion if the matter was put to debate. The Interior (Talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That actually makes more sense than anything I've read so far. We'll keep them one-way then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, about three-quarters of the policies and guidelines in that long list above are irrelevant, because ==External links== are not WP:Reliable sources. See WP:ELMAYBE #4: You may link to a page that is not a reliable source.

However, the rest of them do apply, and they mean that a link of this type is inappropriate. It's not that it's a bad website, or spammy, or anything like that. It's just that it doesn't happen to be the type of website that Wikipedia links to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think anyone reading this discussion in the future will find a lot to learn from. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the Anders Behring Breivik page link his 'manifesto' externally?

Greetings! I have triggered a discussion on the Anders Behring Breivik discussion page on whether the external link section should link the 'manifesto' and the "Knights Templar" video made by Anders Behring Breivik. The discussion can be found here. Until now, the issue has not got a lot of opinions. More opinions are appreciated, especially from experienced contributors. Corinius (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto is clearly useful to people wanting to learn more about Anders Breivik, as evidenced by the multitude of news agencies that have quoted from it and the fact that the Wikipedia presently refers to his manifesto some 32 times. It is certainly reasonable for people to want to look at it in order to learn more about his thinking / politics / etc. Facilitating such follow-up research is well within the purpose of Wikipedia. (Actually one could easily argue for the manifesto's inclusion as a reference alongside the many third-party discussions of its content.)

The fact that the book argues for violent revolution is hardly surprising, but I doubt that his particular brand of rhetoric is so threatening that we would need to single it out for special treatment compared to all the other terrorist manifestos and other works advocating violence and/or hate. I don't find the arguments for exclusion based on its rhetorical content to be at all compelling, compared to its value for gaining insights into the subject.

The only factor that gives me pause is the fact that the manifesto apparently includes detailed instructions for how to build bombs and commit other acts of terrorism. More so than his political and hate filled rants, his practical instructions to future terrorists and more likely to have a lasting impact. This is very unfortunate. However, from our point of view, we should consider whether the external link is likely to impact potential terrorists. Personally I think that is unlikely. Someone who really has the skill and resources to make bombs almost certainly has the ability to research it in other ways. Not least of which is by typing "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" into Google and downloading one of the dozens of copies. Serious researchers will find this material whether or not we link to it. So, in my opinion, it is mostly the casual researcher we should be considering. In that sense I don't think the bomb-making instructions really matter much, whereas the insights into his particular brand of crazy are likely to be informative to a much wider group of people.

So, on balance, I would argue that its value to readers wanting to gain insights into Anders Breivik outweighs any potential damage we might do by linking to it, and so its inclusion as an external link (or as a reference) would be appropriate. And of course, just because Wikipedia links to or discusses his manifesto (or other hate and violence filled writing) is not at all an endorsement of its content. Dragons flight (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, even in external links, so the bomb-building stuff doesn't really matter.

In the hope of producing a quick solution: I thought I saw at some other noticeboard that the manifesto was being cited as a reliable primary source to support text in the article. If so, then we shouldn't duplicate the link under ==External links== per WP:ELRC. (If not, then we'll have to have a full discussion—probably beginning with the guideline's very strong preference for English-language links.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have parallel discussion on the article discussion page.

Quick fact: As a primary source, the manifesto and the video should not be cited on Wikipedia (original research), so if manifesto & video are not linked in the external links section, they would not be linked at all.

I suggest that further discussion of the topic is made on the article discussion page. I will add a link there to back to this discussion.-- Corinius (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing promary sources is not OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are entirely acceptable for seeing the words / views / etc. of a notable person. Dragons flight (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting: “… editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source.”

So yes, the manifesto can be cited in case the citation is not an analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation (I wonder whether such a case exists). It has been removed from the inline sources repeatedly for this reason. Corinius (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY directly says that primary sources may be used. You can use the manifesto exactly like you might use Atlas Shrugged to write Atlas Shrugged#Plot summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was merely quoting the infobanner set up on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik (second from bottom upwards). As I said, the manifesto has been repeatedly removed as an inline reference for this reason (not by me). Summary/analysis of the manifesto in the article is currently based only on secondary sources. Corinius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Next easy question: Is the manifesto in English? EL strongly discourages links to non-English pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is in English. Corinius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly good and fluent English, too, for a non-native speaker. As a source, the manifesto falls under WP:SPS, i.e. it can be used under the circumstances described in WP:SELFPUB. As an external link, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Our readers have a legitimate interest to learn about this, and I see no valid reason not to link it. WP:DENY only applies internally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS essentially excludes the use as a source as Breivik is no reputable expert on the subject he writes about.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You confuse WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Under WP:SPS, recognised experts can be used on (nearly) every topic even if self-published. Under WP:SELFPUB, a SPS can be used as a source about itself (e.g. to state "the manuscript has 1518 pages", or "it features a Templer cross on the title page", or "on page 19, Breivik mentions Antonio Gramsci"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto has been linked again as an external link. Corinius (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If Breiviks manifesto is in English and online, imho it can be listed under external links. But as a a (primary) source it can only used for direct quotations. But WP authors cannot use it to describe his state of mind or to give a summary of his ideas. For that reputable secondary sources need to be used, otherwise it is most likely OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's far more restrictive than what the actual policy says about using primary sources, but that's a subject for another board. This one is really only concerned with what happens underneath ==External links==.

Can anyone who thinks the manifesto is a bad external link please give me a quick precis of the objections, ideally by ELNO number, and leaving out all the irrelevant stuff about whether or not it's a reliable source, since external links do not have to be reliable sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My thesis was that the manifesto is propaganda that is fundamentally intended to recruit suicide bombers, and, as it is specifically designed to be distributed over the internet, distributing it in its original form does not enough to “neutralize” it, and so, linking it is inappropriate.

That would be No. 2 of WP:ELNO and also WP:ELPOV would come into play. Besides, none of the points of WP:ELYES actually fits on the manifesto.

However, there has been a lengthy discussion on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik and also here, and it’s clear my view is only a marginal position. There’s a clear majority pro-linking, and so, apart from the unlikely case that someone takes up my position, the matter can be considered closed. Corinius (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; [...] she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate ; errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them" - that's the spirit of "all human knowledge", and the argument behind WP:NOTCENSORED. Have some trust in our readers - we don't need to protect them from information, we need to present it in its proper context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. And another thanks to all that posted here for your input to the discussion! Corinius (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

factbites.com

We have about 70 links to factbites.com, with a fair number from article space and a few as references. To my mind all these pages are worthless linkfarms that provide no value to the reader, and are certainly not reliable sources. Before I remove those in articlespace, does anyone see any value in these that I do not? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, please do remove them. I see some of their stuff is from us. [1]. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This still needs people to take a few minutes and remove a couple of links. Just click the link Finlay provided, and have a look at anything in the main article space. It really won't take you more than a minute or two to make some good progress, and many hands make light work. There are only a couple of dozen to go (not counting talk page links and such, which should be left alone). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just went through and removed the rest... I believe we're

Done. Them From Space 20:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Search engine

Curious when I Google "What part of speech is the word so" (Without the quotes) why the sixth site returned is a link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fuck

I suspect someone has tagged the page so it comes up to shock unsuspecting Googlers.

There is nothing special about the fuck article. Wikipedia isn't responsible for what Google does. If this concerns you, you should direct your concern to Google. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I gets even "worse": http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Great_tit :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Demon Wiki

demonwiki.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Recently User:Supermercado added several dozen links to this webpage on many Football/Soccer players' articles. The link leads to an open wiki. Of the pages I checked, all were created by a user "Supermercado" on the Demon Wiki. I'm tempted to remove these links, as I don't think they meet our WP:EL guidelines, but I'm really not feeling like doing mass reversions without prior discussion tonight :P So can anyone give me a good reason to keep these links? Them From Space 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Demon Wiki is a wiki dedicated to the Melbourne Football Club and Supermercado is the main editor to that wiki. That said, the articles on Demon Wiki are often better than our (Wikipedia's) articles. That is the reason why the links are useful – because they can help to expand our articles. There are some occasions where our articles are better than the Demon Wiki article, but not often and I still don't see what harm the link does (as even when our article is better, they can all still be improved and the Demon Wiki article can help with that). I've created ~30 articles on Melbourne Football Club players and I often use Demon Wiki as a building block for them. So, to answer "an anyone give me a good reason to keep these links?" Because they are useful for building the encyclopedia. To ask a question back at you, what part of the EL guideline does this not meet? And if indeed they do not meet the guideline, why should common sense not prevail? Also, the fact that the sport in question is Australian rules football, not soccer, is probably a reflection of how much research was done. Jenks24 (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In case anyone's interested, I have no affiliation with Demon Wiki and have never edited it. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason to link from Wikipedia to Demon Wiki (and vice-versa may I add) is because the pages on my Wiki are usually in much greater depth than the ones on Wikipedia because they assume a greater interest in the topic than the normal Wiki user would have. If they want the overview of somebody they will be happy with the Wiki article, but if they want further information they will click through. Adding every piece of information about every aspect of the pages would just clog Wikipedia with info that only a handful of people might be interested in. As you will see there are no advertisements on DW so there is no question that the links on the Wikipedia pages are there to try and make money or similar. I think it would be ridiculous to take these links off, and in the future I'd like to have each MFC player page linked back and forth between the two Wikis so that advanced users can get the information they need. Supermercado (talk)

All of the material from the Demon Wiki pages that I looked at can be incorporated into the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Take this page for example. There is nothing on that page that cannot be incorporated into our Wikipedia article for this player. Instead of linking externally you should concentrate on building up the Wikipedia articles themselves by adding the material directly into our articles, and citing it appropriately. In our guidelines this is expressed as WP:ELNO point 1; which implies that shouldn't link to external sites that just duplicate the function of Wikipedia articles. This is especially the case with mass additions and I would strongly protest any attempt to have a link to the Wiki on all of the MFC players' articles.

You are obviously here to help improve our coverage of these articles. That is a good thing and you are welcome to do so, but just adding external links to your own site is not the proper way to do this.Them From Space 17:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Nawi

Several editors at Ezra Nawi are debating whether or not to include the official document of Nawi's 2009 conviction by an Israeli court in Jerusalem. Actually, this shares many of the features of the debate that took place further up on this page in relation to Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto. One camp is arguing that including the conviction violates WP:BLPPRIMARY in that it is, supposedly, being used "to support assertions about a living person." The other camp rejects that it is being used in any such manner, since it is in the "External links" section and therefore without any artificial context.—Biosketch (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Breivik's manifesto and this court case is that Breivik is the author of the manifesto, and BLP allows for primary source material so long as it is by the subject. Here, we have an attempt to link to primary documents from the state, or the adversary in the criminal proceedings. If there is material in the article, cited to reliable secondary sources, that explicitly references the court records, the link may be included as a source. Otherwise I do not think it should be included. nableezy - 16:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

External links, by definition, do not support any article content at all. Therefore, it is actually impossible for an external link to be used "to support assertions about a living person". Consequently, BLPPRIMARY does not prohibit the link.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. Non-English links are strongly discouraged in WP:NONENGEL, and this doesn't meet any of the three common exceptions (an official link to a non-English company or organization; a link to a book or other work originally written in a non-English; and a website whose content is mostly visual, like a map). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first point, would that mean that an advocacy site like "FreeAndersBehringBreivik.org" would be alright as an external link for Anders Behring Breivik? I'd have thought external links still have limits in that respect.

With regards to the Hebrew court document, I hear what you're saying re WP:NONENGEL. It says, "external links to English-language content are strongly preferred." I would think that in today's Google Translate day, though, a link to the Hebrew document would still be of encyclopedic value to Western readers.—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a website would not necessarily be acceptable. All such links must comply with both WP:ELBLP and WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, as well as the usual considerations, like WP:ELPOV and editors' good judgment. In practice, disputed links are normally removed, and just bout everything is contested in an article like that, so you'd probably need a firm consensus to include it.

If the community thought that the existence of Google translate were enough to justify linking to non-English websites, then its advice in the guideline would doubtless be different. If you can find other editors who think it's a good candidate for an exception, then it could be discussed, but I don't really expect too many people to favor linking to the document. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

XKCD comic, again

An edit keeps insisting on adding a comic link to Password strength. While WP:XKCD is an essay, not policy, I believe we've already established a consensus that XKCD links are rarely appropriate for article inclusion. However, I don't want to edit war about it, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved. If not, please let us know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

May the article The God Delusion link to an online bootleg copy of the book?

I just undid the link. I'm assuming it's not okay but don't know where to look for the appropriate policy or guideline. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: the WP:ELNEVER guideline rules out linking to copyright violations, and the very strong policy WP:LINKVIO makes the removal of such links mandatory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that; went straight to WP:ELNO. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption on Second voyage of HMS Beagle

This has previously been raised here, but was not resolved conclusively. I'm raising the matter again, because the editor is now adding his/her external link to the captions of other users' images. Examples here and here. The contributor notes that he/she has added eleven of these links so far.

Is it appropriate to add links pointing to one's own creations on external web pages to the captions of other editors' images? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think {{GeoTemplate}}, as you suggested in your old posting, is a good solution for this problem unless you don't want a bunch of coordinates placed throughout the text. A collapsed list may work as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding eleven links to one's own work is a problem. It suggests a conflict of interest and, although some here might encourage self-promotion among specific individuals, I and my best understanding of Wikipedia guidelines do not. Furthermore, the examples Old Moonraker gave above are dependent on javascript, and so fail ELNO#8 (rich media). BitterGrey (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

These external links may be placed in the ==External links== section, formatted like any other link. They may not be placed in the main body of the article (which includes captions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing behaviour at Hernán Cortés. I twice removed links from the article before becoming aware of this discussion. In the current incarnation here he effectively replicates content already present in the page in a google maps format. In my opinion it violates both the External Links and Original Research guidelines. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Material has now been re-installed in Hernán Cortés for the third time, using the justification that he's done the same to 11 other articles. I'm unfamiliar with the procedures for dealing with an editor who regards his personal opinion as superseding policies. Where do we go next? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also requesting suggestions for the right response. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Pragmaticstatistic (talk · contribs) to join this discussion. Perhaps he will begin by explaining to me why he keeps adding these external links in the body of the article (rather than correctly adding them to the ==External links== section) when the guideline and multiple editors have directly told him not to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are my responses to the above:

Wiki complaint: "my maps are self-published."Italic text My response: My maps appear in two ways in the top 10 Google searches. 1) As MyReadingMapped listings, and 2) As GoogleMap.com listings. Thus, if I die, they belong to Google who owns the server and all that is created by any of use users. The likelihood of Google going under is less of an expected event than that of Wikipedia going under.If Google goes under, so will the Internet.

Wiki complaint: "They are under an account in your name, any errors require you personally to fix them. You are not immortal."Bold text My response: The original Google Maps, on the Google Server, are published as a public document that can be edited by anyone who logs on via Google Map. The only version of these maps that cannot be edited are the embedded images on my blog. As for any new maps I am working on, such as the map on exploration in Siberia by Mikael Strandberg, I am sharing collaboration with him and he is providing me with authentic content.

Wiki complaint: "They are in a database at a specific commercial host, which is also not guaranteed to exist forever."Bold text My response: Neither is Wikipedia. And, many of the edits on Wikipedia, such as the List of Ship Wrecks, have red highlighted listings that either don't exist and go nowhere or are commented as not having sufficient authenticity. So, why weren't they removed rather than remain as empty useless data? The Marco Polo, Alexander the Great, H.M Stanley, and Cortés maps on Wiki all have errors that are not proven in the books and journals of the explorer, and I can prove it.

Wiki complaint: "Your account at google maps is not guaranteed to exist forever. If you irritate someone, your account (and all the information in them) is deleted."Bold text My response: Ditto for Wikipedia.

Wiki complaint: "To fix these problems, you need to find a way to provide the coordinates in question in Wikipedia itself."Bold text My response: Most of the maps obtained their location coordinates from Wikipedia pages. Each location I find in a book is researched on Wikipedia to obtain the location's coordinate. The only locations that do not have Wiki provided coordinates are those not found on Wiki. Thus, my map saves the visitor from having to go through the process of locating the coordinate for a long list of ship wrecks, ruin, etc. through GeoHack.

Wiki complaint: "Wikipedia is a tertiary reference, which means it should only report on content published elsewhere - and not in blogs."Bold text My response: My maps are referred my a long list of teachers and others who are free to embed the maps in their sites or just list them. For example, here is one I received today about MyReadingMapped: http://www.delicious.com/raman_sam/?page=2 As for reading the rules and communicating with Wiki, Wiki makes it way to difficult for the average person to participate. A new user must spend months learning how it works, months learning how to program and edit it, and learn its rules all of which discourage any participation. So why bother, just wipe my edits off Wikipedia and leave it at that. As a marketing communications manager, it appears to me that Wikipedia was designed and created by engineers rather than communications experts. Redesign it and allow all of us to participate, not just the elite.

If UNESCO Heritage sites can have a Google Map at the top of the of a Wiki page, than so can anyone else. The one I viewed had over one hundred locations, and it gave me the idea to create other Google Maps on historic events to enhance what the Wikipedia maps lack. Also, as a marketing communications professional for technical products, I see the lists on Wiki are difficult to deal with and require GeoHack to zoom in on he location. The List of ship wrecks is in a hog poge order by country and ocean that are confusing, my maps make it easy for anyone to see and read the information visitors are interested in without the confusion. As a result, if the red highlighted items were eliminated and my 3 maps of the Atlantic, Pacific and North, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas were embedded in Wiki, they would work better than the list as it exists. Then only the ship wrecks without coordinates would be listed under each map. There are even links that go to the wrong subject, which I suspect were hacked. As I pointed out to Old Moonraker the Civil War battle page was very confusing, had incorrect links, links with the wrong date and battles that were Indian wars not Civil war battles.

Lastly, check out Wikipedia page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mimee This is obviously a commercial advertisement in the form of a Wiki page. It displays a commercial product, provides the manufacturer's name and provides external links to the companies web site. If you think my blog is a violation of Wiki rules, then the Mimee page is also. If this page was open access as you desire, the coordinate converter would be able to convert my coordinates on Wiki rather than just being an image that forces us visitors to buy the product. The Mimee page is flagged for needing additional citations and verification, but was not flagged for its commercial violation. The Wiki rules seem only to apply when Wiki decides to wants them on an editor by editor basis.

The time has come to establish a new Google Maps policy. Especially since the Talk page invite I got has all these instructions on how Google search is a vital part of how Wiki works. Thus, since I am innovating how Google Maps apply to historic events, Wiki should adopt a policy for those people like me who leave the content of the map to authentic and creditable resources. If my using Wiki itself and all the books published by the actual explorer, leading biographers and currently living explorers I have developed a relationship with don't qualify as a reliable source, what will?

Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) [edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmaticstatistic (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More:

Check out this link to my new Mikael Strandberg map of his 2004 Siberian Expedition,this is not something I made up. This is how it appears on my blog. It was created with the cooperation of the actual Royal Geographical Society explorer's permission and collaboration. Mikael thinks it is fantastic and he put a link on Facebook, LinkedIn and will Tweet it to 15,000. Thus, this map if you ever allow it to be placed on Wiki, is authentic content. Also, the Charles Darwin map Old Moonraker keeps throwing off was done with the cooperation and collaboration of the Charles Darwin Trust in England.The Charles Daqwin trust tweeted it to its members.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

None of that addresses my issue at all.

External links do not belong in the body of an article. External links are supposed to be typed at the bottom of the page, underneath the header ==External links==. Why do you keep adding them to the body of the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Response: Then how does UNESCO get away with placing external Google Maps as page content within the top 20% of the page? How did Mimee get to turn an entire page into an ad for the product? I add my maps to the body of the article because they had editorial content that improves the visitor's understanding of the subject. In some cases they correct errors, offer a different view point or add additional information not explained sufficiently on the page. For example, I placed a link in the caption of a map of Alexander the Great because my Google Map enhances and works with the map on the page by providing information not explained in the map displayed on the page. In another case, an expedition was explained that did not have a map. In the case of Marco Polo, on Wikisource, my map is based on the footnotes of Wikipedia's Henry Yule interpretation where the complete book is published on Wikisource. These footnotes written by experts in the subject, give a different route than the map Wiki publishes on its Marco Polo page. There are two areas where the widely accepted route are wrong. In Iran, Polo does not go from Hormus to northern Afghanistan, but rather back tracks up Iran to the Caspian Sea and then crosses a shorter section of the desert to northern Afghanistan, and in Burma, Polo does not return to China via the same south westerly route he came, but rather heads east across Loas into south eastern china before heading north. Since you won't let me add my map as content, would you rather that I edit the page and point out the errors with a lengthy explanation that I know you would challenge and make me prove that the commonly held information is wrong? How do I go about challenging incorrect common knowledge on Wiki? Where is that policy? If anything, history has proven that many commonly held positions are wrong and that their are multiple views on each subject. As a library on history, how can Wikipedia restrict a second opinion or even a wide spread of opinions? Does Old Moonraker, limit my Darwin map because he is a religious person who does not believe in Darwinism? Are Wiki editor's using their personal beliefs to restrict the free exchange of information and opposing points of view?Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any Google Maps at UNESCO Heritage site. I don't agree that the stub at Mimee is "an ad for the product". It looks like a pretty boring, factual description to me.

But the important point is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for violating the guideline. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and we realistically expect some of them to be seriously flawed at any given point. You're supposed to be emulating the best examples, not the worst. You're supposed to be following the policies and guidelines—including the one that says your Google Map links might be acceptable under the ==External links== heading (that is, they are not prohibited by the guideline, although any external link may be removed if someone doesn't like it), but never in the middle of an article, even if you personally think that more readers will click the link if you put it in the middle of the article.

As for the errors you are worried about, anyone may WP:BOLDly fix errors (note that "fix" is not the same as "mess up the article to make a WP:POINT") or WP:CHALLENGE the accuracy and appropriateness of the article's contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to the above:

Here is the World Heritage Map. That is the address of the original Google Map, not the address of the Wiki page. Since I don't have access to the Wiki directory of World Heritage input and the large volume of their pages, it is difficult for me to find it again. I found this by simply Googling it and found it on another site. The reason why it is hard to find is because it is referred to on Wiki as World Heritage sites coordinates in Google. That is how I obtained the wording that allowed me to place my maps on Wiki without you noticing.

To end this, just do whatever you want to my Google Map edits. The 2,200 new visits I have had in the last 30 days to my blog prove you wrong as to whether my maps are good subject content and the volume of referrals I am getting from visitors is further proof. I started a page this morning to point out all the errors I found in commonly held beliefs. Maybe Wiki should read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmaticstatistic (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We're just going round in circles now. Lots of editors have suggested reasons why the links are wrong, and User:Pragmaticstatistic invites us to "wipe my edits off". The logical next step seems obvious. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my last comment: check out this page on my blog to see my my Google Maps provide editorial content. It provides proof of the Wikipedia errors and how those errors do not appear in the publications of these explorers written by them over 100 years ago.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: self published sources can't be used to prove anything, errors or otherwise, on Wikipedia. Better plan: Read WP:V and WP:RS, find some notable, reliable sources and use these to fix the articles in which you have found mistakes. Good luck!--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Moonraker, Under those rules, it is amazing that anything can be published on Wikipedia, because what one editor considers valid copy another will not. It seems your interpretation does not include the published words of the explorers themselves, even if they were highly educated with lots of peer reviews. Charles Darwin would certainly fit that criteria and my map on him does not include any comments by me, all the content comes from Darwin's book and Wikipedia pages. The problem with peer reviews is that many pieces that were peer reviewed poorly were later determined to be the foundation of what is now become the standard of knowledge. So how can you as an editor know what to remove and what is groundbreaking knowledge. It seems to me that the rules are a limitation of the 1st amendment right to free speech of its contributors. Wiki first invites us to participate in contributing content, but then slaps us with so much regulation it makes government regulations look like elementary school. Forget it, I no longer want to participate. Take all the content I placed in the body and make them external links as a they are worded. Thus, you will bury them where no one will find them. The only person you hurt is your Wiki visitors who won't learn what the maps have to offer. If I as a marketing communications manager, had to operate as Wikipedia does, with all its errors that are supported with citations and backed by PhDs, I would not have accomplished the high volume of sales I achieved nor would my customers have purchased my products. Having all the right facts and supporting it with peers is only part of the story, what is more important is how you organize the information in a manner in which it is easily found and understood by your user. Wiki is great at the former, and poor at the later. Way too many links go no where, have poor information, no information or information with errors, or information that just projects the view acceptable my Wiki editors.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Moonraker is correct, per WP:Reliable sources; WP:COI applies as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what you want, you editors make trying to be a Wiki contributor a horror story. Its a wonder anyone even attempts to try. Your rules and procedures are mind boggling. Your tutorial implies its easy, it is not easy. There should be a warning statement on the first page of the tutorial that states something along these lines... "Warning! Do not attempt your first edit without first determining whether you are an authorized Wiki contributor with at least a PhD, can provide peer-reviewed quality content, are able to deal with a vast amount of Wiki regulations and have the ability to learn Wiki-style HTML programming." Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

I question that you are trying to be a Wikipedia contributor at all. As you said last April (this has been dragging on a very long time): "my blog and Google Maps public exposure is doing well on their own". Aren't you just trying to hitch a ride here to drive traffic to your blog? There's another clear expression above: "I would not have accomplished the high volume of sales I achieved nor would my customers have purchased my products". Conflict of interest indeed. Time this was put to bed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Response--NO! You just don't get it. These links DO NOT go to my web site! They add no volume to my blog's stats other an a handful who click the link within some of the maps that link back to my blog. Most of the maps have links within them to go to other maps totally within Google Maps without going through my blog. I did it because I wanted to share my maps with others and my blog was the way I achieved it and thought Wiki could benefit from them as well because these maps are in some ways better and less confusing than the long lists on Wiki. My Civil War Maps and Sunken Ship maps are my most popular and they got that way because of the referrals I placed on various subject forums prior to being added to Wiki. MY blog gets 44% of its visitors direct, 32% from referrals other than Wiki, and 23% from search engines. Check this Google Search on the Civil War Map, see the 9th web site listed down is "Interactive Map of The Civil War (Part 1) - Google Maps". That is my original Google Map not the embedded one on my blog. Now check out the Google Search, "Interactive map of sunken ships of the Atlantic". Notice items #1, 2 and 3 are my blog, #6 is the Google original map on Google, and #4 is a forum referral from Atlantic Online. Notice that the Wiki link to the Google original map does not show up in the list. On Google Search "Stanley found Livingstone", Wiki is #1 and #2, my blog is #10 and the Stanley Google Book I linked to is #5. So, I don't need Wiki and your claim I am feed of Wiki is false. To date, the largest volume of Wiki related referrals are its Editor's talk pages. Most of my Google Maps referrals are my blog's returning visitors from Google Map. And. As for any referrals Wiki gets from approximately a thousand Wiki links within the 29 Google maps I created, they would all come from Google Map and will not identify me, my blog, or my map's name. However, my user name may appear within the Google Map.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP:PROMOtional nature of this has me thinking about the utility of the WP:BLACKLIST. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With all the bull being thrown around here, I decided to just let this go and to go public about this form control over the free flow of information. Wiki needs to change how we contributors interact with it. Instead of the editors being hostile toward contributors, why not have us email the editor of the specific page with our request before uploading our edits. This way we find out what we can edit, if we can edit, are we qualified to edit, and in what form can we edit, before uploading without being insulted by Wiki editors who comment after the event took place. Be an editor who works with the writer, not against the writer. With as many editors as are involved here, it is hard for us contributors to know how consistent the policy is adhered to. Some are more flexible than others. So there needs to be a less complicated form of direct communication where we don't have to check and find your talk page. If you want to talk to us -- email us and allow us to email you back. Guide us, help us, direct us, limit us if you have to, but don't restrict us without participating in our effort. Be on the front-end to the project, not the back-end of the project. Don't sit as judge behind closed doors and this Wiki Talk Page system that is a poor form of communicating. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My blog article on this debate picked up a very good comment by a visitor about Wiki editors from his own experience. You should read it.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

By now you editors must be upset with my Wiki blog article and its visitor responses. But keep this in mind, many of you have made slanderous comments about me on this public forum talk page, where anyone other than an editor is at a great disadvantage. This activity can be considered borderline cyberbullying. Many of you editors had made incorrect accusations in a public forum and I would like a public apology from those I have proven wrong.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not at all upset, but I am now convinced that you're narcissistic: A normal person would not assume that multiple editors would drop everything they were doing, within a couple of hours of you posting a link, just to see what some run-of-the-mill single-purpose account or spammer had to say. We see a lot of folks like you, who want us to re-write Wikipedia's anti-spam rules to permit them to promote their own links, and I doubt that you have anything new or interesting to say on the subject.

I haven't bothered to read your blog post, but I assume that your post says it's just terrible that Wikipedia applies the same rules to your maps as we do to all external links, instead of making special exceptions for you. I assume that you further tell people that it's been terribly inconvenient and time-consuming to try to get around the normal rules.

As far as I'm concerned, this is great. You need not have any further fears about us thinking that you're bullying us with your off-wiki complaints. I don't have even the smallest objection to you telling the world that we enforce our anti-spam rules. Perhaps it will encourage others not to break the rules like you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not "responses": only one response so far, from a poster suggesting that "wikipedia admins take money in order to make biased edits". Perhaps it's time I made that WP:RFA after all! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that questions about blacklists were deleted by Pragmaticstatistic (talk) - see here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing was deleted from this page by PragmaticStatistic, if anything was deleted, it was deleted by someone else. Most likely the person who made the comment. My blog article not only states my objections, it also put this entire discussion up for readers to read. You are not hurting me. In case you have not noticed, this Talk Page is appearing on other people's web sites beyond mine. You show up in any search for MyReadingMapped. These visitors have embedded this entire page in their website. See the Foo Drinks site I found when checking my blogs referrals. This Talk page is now driving traffic to my blog. It wasn't traffic I desired to get. Thus, you are not hurting me, you are hurting the reputation of Wikipedia and may have done it serious harm through your own words concerning Blacklisting me. Wiki users don't want to know they can be blacklisted for volunteering to add content. That was a very stupid comment to put on a public board where other people with similar problems to mine can read it. Now its all over the web. If you had the proof to banish me, you would have done by now and not dragged this argument out for months. But since not all the Wiki editors consider my maps as spam, and I am still able to log in, you have not been able do it. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will make it real easy for you to remove my Google Maps. Here is my complete list of edits:

Subject Content Section. All start with “Coordinates of ___”, just like the World Heritage Map does.

External links section:

If the above complaining editors have the authority to remove them, do so. If not, then the time has come to pass this discussion on to a Wiki manager with higher authority than the few editors who have commented above, so that I can request a waiver that allows Google Maps, that not located on my blog, and are based on links to the actual books by the explorer the map is about to receive approval for use on Wikipedia. If you do remove them, you can expect complaints from those who have come to like them.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would use the above, helpful list to prepare a spam blacklist submission, a proposal Pragmaticstatistic once deleted from this discussion, if there were a definitive consensus but this isn't required: to go back to where we began, this is already covered by WP:ELNO. Links to blogs may be zapped on sight. If they are repeatedly added the contributor, rather than the link, gets sanctioned. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarl, in response to the question you asked that Pragmaticstatistic deleted (probably as a result of a badly handled WP:edit conflict, rather than through malice), the answer is that we can blacklist each of his maps individually, if we want. The justification would be his spammer-like behavior and inability to understand that the rules apply to him, not just to other people, not the nature of the links themselves. Alternatively, we could ask to have his account blocked for edit warring to promote his links.

Pragmaticstatistic, there isn't any "Wiki manager" or person with "higher authority". Any editor, even a newbie, as the authority to remove your links so long as that person thinks removing them improves the article. Wikipedia is not a hierarchical organization. It is my opinion that links to your maps are acceptable (subject to all the other rules) when placed in the ==External links== section. Therefore, I have no wish to remove the links from the last group of articles in your list. Furthermore, it seems likely to me that many others could be adequately addressed by moving the link, rather than deleting the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed my mind from my last after reading WikiProject Spam in today's Signpost: blacklist does seem appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You editors have a problem, see you have this page on Wiki called "Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates" that allows external links to a Google Map as acceptable Wiki policy. Thus, my Google maps would be legally grandfathered under this policy since you already have such a link for the World Heritage Google map. My links simply the process for the visitor. The vast majority of the Maps in GeoHack are under a business arrangement with Google. Thus, my Google Maps, which go to the same place as thousands of external Wiki links in the body content area go to, are combined in far fewer searches. Instead of complaining about my maps, you should embrace them as a better way to deal with the tedious process of seeing the actual locations listed on the page. If you want me to take out the link within the original Google Maps that links back to my blog, that can be negotiated in order to appease you. I am not trying to gain an advantage from Wiki. I thought that since my maps take advantage of links to Wiki that I should return the favor, like I have with other sites, by providing Wiki with maps that provide Wiki with a better way of handling coordinates and that some of these maps are so profound that they deserve a better position rather than be buried at the bottom of the page. Before you remove these maps, why don't you actually try using one of the maps. Try the Charles Darwin map as example of a map that adds a lot more to the discussion than Old Moonraker realizes. In any case, I don't really care if Old Moonraker blacklists me. His threats only present a bad image for Wiki in a public forum.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, before you remove my maps, here is some interesting data that shows my maps are way more popular than any of us understood. Evidently Google Map calculates within each map the number of views each map receives. When I compared these figures to my Blogger Stats, and my Google Analytic Stats, I got a very surprising result. Google Map indicates a very significantly higher number of Google Map Views than my Blogger or Google Analytic Stats. To date Google Maps indicate a total of 14,317 visits to 32 maps over a period of 5 months since I began creating maps. My Blogger stats only indicate a total of 4,332 Scrolled URL Pageviews, while Google Analytics indicates a total of 2,477 Clicked URL Pageviews.

For example:

The Lewis and Clark Map received 2,861 Google Map Views, 70 Blogger Pageviews and 45 Google Analytic Pageviews.
The Marco Polo Map received 1,029 Google Map Views, 93 Blogger Pageviews and 70 Google Analytic Pageviews.
The Hernando Cortés map that keeps being removed from Wiki already has 111 Google Map views in the very short time it has been available.
The Darwin map that Old Moonraker changed to an "External Link" at the bottom of the page has 842 Google Map views.
The Sunken Ships of the Pacific has 1,574 Google Map views.

This result is likely from a combination of the following reasons:

My Blogger visitors bookmarked the original Google Map for return visits without the need to go through my blog.
Google’s own visitors were generated via Google Map’s own search engine results.
The visitors used the links within each map to jump to the other maps without returning to my blog.
Wikipedia generated visits to the original Google Maps (not my blog)

Thus, there is a strong possibility, and only a possibility, that Wikipedia visitors place great value in these maps rather than my blog. Which is fine with me as long as people enjoy them. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't care how popular your maps are. We care whether you are behaving well (we can and have blocked otherwise excellent websites solely because they are being spammed by disruptive people [regardless of whether the spammer is connected to the website]) and whether the sites are appropriate for our articles. The effect of the community's decisions on your website's traffic statistics or revenue is 100% unimportant to us. Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You've admitted to punishing the site instead of the individual for the acts of the individual? Wow. That's some serious misdirected fire, there. "Do what I want or the kitten gets it," indeed. Silverstarseven (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What better punishment for the spammer is there, than to make it impossible to link to his favorite site? Also, we don't want to encourage Wikipedia:My little brother did it excuses. ("It wasn't the website that spammed Wikipedia: it was my little brother, my poorly supervised contractor, my enthusiastic new employee...") If permitting a link to a specific website significantly disrupts Wikipedia, we will make it impossible to link to that website. Our goal is to end disruption, full stop, not merely to end disruption if and only if the disruption is proven to be caused by the site owner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on an apparent consensus arrived at in this thread, I've gone ahead and removed these links. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

--- Verrrry good. The gods have spoken. You guys fit in real well with the corporate oligarchy that has taken over our government. Lets see if they can keep the country from default like you restrict the freedom of speech. Each has its own interpretation of the Constitution from its own viewpoint, and in the end the people get shafted every time. All hail Wikipedia! You might as well close my account as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmaticstatistic (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In find it very interesting that the following wiki sites have all linked into my blog:

fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium?match=en

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium

he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98:%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F?match=en

it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Bar?match=en

ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5?match=en

vi.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn?match=en

el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7:%CE%93%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B1?match=en

fa.wikisource.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87:%D8%AF%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87?match=en

Am I being spied on by Wiki,or, are people voluntarily adding the link because they see value in my blog? Oh, and thanks for removing Gibbon's Wiki book the "Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon" Vol 2.,within hours of removing my links on Wiki. So, while it temporarily disrupted my interactive map, it forced me to put actual explorer content in the maps in order to prevent destruction of the maps by an outside source. Now the maps can stand on their own without relying on Wikipedia and my visitors can look up any Wiki references themselves. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource is a separate project with different requirements for inclusion. If you want to know why they're linking something, you'll have to go there and ask them. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's just because you linked it from there yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Location specific availability of External Links

This is an issue that is being discussed on WT:ALBUMS (here). Some discussion already occurred on WT:EL ([[3]]). It's pretty clear that a link that is only available in a specific country would be prohibited per WP:ELNO#EL7: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country" are to be avoided." But what about a link that is available to a substantial number of users, but not all users?

Myspace is providing access to streamable content for some Albums and Songs, but only where licensed. I feel that this access to the source material for those articles is something that should be provided as an external link on the page. So far we have determined that access is available in the U.S.A. and in Europe, but there is at least one country in the world (probably more) where it is not available. My suspicion is that access is available in the U.S.A., Europe (known) and likely Canada, and I hope, Australia and New Zealand. This seems to cover a substantial enough number of users that these can be included as External Links perhaps with a caveat in the prose for the reference like this:

Call the Doctor at MySpace (streamed copy where licensed)

It has already been suggested that the decision for allowing this is up to the editors of WP:ALBUMS (and Songs). The question I have for the noticeboard, is access to these links substantial enough that WT:ELNO#EL7 does not hold in including them?

Thanks,

-- J. Wong (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, I dislike links that do not work in every country. However, if we're pretty sure that it's available in all of Europe and all English-speaking countries, and that no other alternative is available, then a labeled link (like your example) might be accepted, since that combination would cover a substantial majority of our readers.

On the other hand, if someone removed it (from any specific article, not a mass removal campaign), then I would probably not restore it. It's likely that some songs would be more popular in some countries, and if we have a song that is popular in Ruritania but the link doesn't work there, then it would be better for that particular link to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely another alternative would be available after all, this is licensed content and someone is getting payed for it, and someone else is paying in some fashion. In this case, there's a small amount of advertising that you see no different (actually, it seems like a little less) than you might get from linking to a source article from one of the news magazines such as Newsweek or Time.

If someone removed a link, then I'd start a conversation as to why. If it is because of a reason such as you gave, then yeah I could live with that. However, it if was because they thought it was WT:ELNO, or just didn't like it, then maybe not. -- J. Wong (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Identity

Could someone else review these? I reverted an edit saying we had enough links, they were replaced with the statement 'can never have enough links' which is clearly wrong. Before I start going through them individually I'd like another opinion so as to hopefully avoid an edit war or simply me being mistaken. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim to be adding these links on the ground that we "can never have enough links" is disingenuous, as the person who said that has repeatedly removed a couple of links, as well as adding his/her own links.
Not only the links added by that person, but nearly all the external links in the article are not to objective sources of information on the subject, but rather to propaganda pages for organisations advocating "Christian Identity". They have every appearance of being "links mainly intended to promote a website" (quoted from WP:ELNO), they appear to me to be sites "that [do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", and they seem to contain "unverifiable research", if one is to grace such unsubstantiated opinions with the term "research". In addition, one of the links (the one to web.syr.edu) appears to be a dead link, and another (www.ucoy.org) links to a web site with nothing to do with the subject of the article: it looks as though the domain name has probably changed hands. As far as I can see the only link in the external links section which has any reasonable claim to comply with our external links policy is the FBI link. Certainly the links added by the person Dougweller refers to do not belong in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurabia

Hello,

Can http://ireadoddbooks.com/2083-by-andrew-berwick-aka-anders-behring-breivik/ be used as External link in Eurabia, Bat Ye'or, Fjordman, Anders Behring Breivik? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, seems to pretty clearly fail ELNO as a personal blog. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quincy, Massachsetts, Patriot Ledger Answer Book

Is [this] an acceptable external link for the article Hingham, Massachusetts? It's Hingham's town information page from the Patriot Ledger, a newspaper in the small city of Quincy, Massachusetts.

The Patriot Ledger was founded in 1837 (or 1916, depending on how you count). It's a paid paper (that is, not a free giveaway paper). It's generally respected in the area and it's probably a reliable source for facts pertaining to the local area.

The link in question contains information about Hingham, Massachusetts such as a brief history, demographs, names of current town officials, some pictures, links to recent news stories about the town that have appeared in the Patriot Ledger, stuff like that. ~~There's no advertising on the page (or really anywhere on the site, that I found, except classified ads).~~ There is advertising on the page (I hadn't seen it with my add filters on) and the ad footprint is comparable to sample pages I looked at in at Slate.com, the Washington Post, the Washington Monthly, the LA Times, the NY Times, and Huffington Post, although a little more extensive than any of these

My view is "Of course it is this is a good link". For one thing, it seems the sort of information that a person perusing the article might want to know. And WP:ELYES says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons [can normally be linked]". This link seems to fill the bill.

However, another editor has maintained that it's not even not a good link, it's not even arguably so, and he's been reverting and blocking editors adding the link (he's also an admin), on the grounds that it's inherently spam -- including the link, by it's nature, illicitly promotes the Patriot Ledger (and, I guess by implication, anyone adding the link is prima facie an agent of the Patriot Ledger). (It's not clear to me if his objection is this particular link or to adding similar links to a score of articles in rapid succession (as was done), since he won't talk about it.)

Well, one of is sure wrong. Maybe it's me, I don't know, that's what I'm here to ask.

So my questions are 1) is this an OK link? and 2) if not, why not? and 3) if it's not an OK link, should we not include any links to commercial entities (the New York Times, company websites, or whatever), on the grounds that they inherently promote the entity? Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the links Herostratus specifically mentions, I'd like to add that outright links to the Patriot Ledger (the regional daily newspaper in southeastern Massachusetts), its sister daily in Brockton which also serves part of the region, and links to weekly town newspapers owned by the media group of which the Ledger is part, have been in many of these town articles for years without objection, comment or dispute. I had already reverted the edits, feel they represent sound individual links in accordance with WP:EL, and observe that the links violate none of the "to be avoided" criteria. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well... my first reaction was "Ugh, no". But then I looked a little closer, and it might be a good example of WP:ELPOINTS #4: "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." So: basic overview, stats page, list of elected officials, list of local government agencies, resources for seniors, link to the library, lists of schools, churches, hospitals... I'm not sure this is a bad link, and it probably meets WP:ELMAYBE #3, "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations". The new editor probably had no idea that anyone would object. In fact, it might be have been more pointful to ask him (or her) to read how not to be a spammer (on accident) than to impose an indef block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus's comment about an administrator "reverting and blocking editors adding the link" are at best taken out of context. To the best of my knowledge only one editor has been blocked in relation to this, and that block was not for adding this link: it was for a single purpose account which did nothing at all except adding large numbers of links to pages all on the same web site. I am also puzzled by the statement "It's not clear to me if his objection is this particular link or to adding similar links to a score of articles in rapid succession (as was done), since he won't talk about it." Herostratus has taken part in a discussion on the talk page of the admin in question (SchuminWeb). That discussion begins with the statement that a user "has added the same link ... in many articles ...", and SchuminWeb referred in that discussion to "adding a link like that en masse all over the place", so I am bewildered how anyone can think it's unclear whether the objection is to one link or collectively to all of them. Also, the statement "he won't talk about it" is open to question. He did "talk about it", and explained his position quite clearly, in my opinion. It looks to me as though "he won't talk about it" means "having talked about it and said all he has to say on the matter, he won't continue to talk about it when Herostratus won't take no for an answer, and continues to demand further answers." As for the links, they are to a site which springs pop-up advertising on innocent users, and falls under the heading of links "to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising" (see WP:EL), which in itself would be grounds for regarding them as doubtful. In addition to that, their being placed in several dozen articles in rapid succession within a period of a couple of hours by an account with no other edits makes it look very much like "links mainly intended to promote a website". Either one of these two conflicts with WP:EL would be reasonable grounds for questioning the acceptability of the lionking, and both together are abundant grounds for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, substitute "blocking an editor" for "blocking editors", but all of this is peripheral to the question is the link OK or not? (and ditto for other similar links). If the link is not OK, very well -- it should be removed (and all similar links from all of our town articles should be removed, and WP:EL should be rewritten to exclude material from local newspapers). If the link is OK we can move on to the other issues you mention which are outside the scope of this board.

I'm not seeing any popup ads. In my usual configuration (which I think is pretty common, with AdBlock installed (it's free)), I don't see any ads at all. Some users don't have ad blockers, and when I disable AdBlock (and all my other protections) I do see ads, on the page, like any other paper including the LA Times etc. I don't see any "pop-up" ads in the sense of ads opening in new windows. I'll try again, maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I think I disabled all my protections (JavaScript=off and my virus protection also) so I don't know what else I could do, but I'm willing to be educated on the matter. Herostratus (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any "pop-up" adds. I disabled my virus protection (if that matters) and opened Internet Explorer. I never use that browser and so it's presumably in its out-of-the-box configuration (with no ad blocking, I assume). I still didn't see any pop-up ads. Per Pop-up ad, "Pop-ups are generally new web browser windows". Are you using an idiosyncratic definition of "pop-up ad" maybe? Or am I still missing something? (It it's the case that Internet Explorer comes with default pop-up ad blocking and one can specifically disable it, then one would assume users who do so want to see pop-up ads and so I don't see a problem there.) So could you please explain yourself? Whether or not there are pop-up ads is an important point here, and if it's not true you probably shouldn't say it. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the links are probably okay.

James, the editor does not appear to have added the same link to more than one article. Instead, the editor appears to have added a different, specific, and relevant link to each of the articles about the local area. Also, even with all ad-blocking and script-blocking software disabled, I'm not seeing any pop-ups at all, and not even an unusual number of other ads.

One thing that has occurred to me since the original complaint is that we're talking about the local newspaper. Articles about small towns routinely include a link to the front page of the local newspaper, even though they're not exactly on topic (being about one business in the town, rather than about the town itself). Why would we want to discourage a link from the local newspaper that is about the town itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jane McCrea

Guidance is sought at Talk:Jane McCrea about the appropriate version of an externally linked source. Another editor is changing a link to a supposedly-improved version of a public domain work (available at Google Books, archive.org, and Project Gutenberg) located on a personal hosting service (webs.com). I believe this link violates WP:ELNO. Magic♪piano 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This simply does not have the authority of this: that "improved" version, on what appears to be a hobbyist's website with no indication of editorial control. I will revert, and hope that the editor will stop warring. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

University System of Georgia

I need someone to help explain our policies to an editor who persists in adding links to the article that are, in my reading of WP:ELNO, not in agreement with our guidelines. Click on the article history and you'll see what I mean. You'll also see that I have reverted twice, and I'm tired of reverting. I've tried to explain it to the editor in summaries and on their talk page, but they don't seem to be listening. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted, and I'll leave another note on the user's talk page (with a little bit of "stick" to show that this isn't optional). It may well be that the user doesn't know about talk pages yet (xe just started editing today). Hopefully they'll catch on before blocking is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Osmrelation

This template is getting out of control - Think its time we talk about a deletion of this spam template that links our readers to site that violates many of our WP:LINKSTOAVOID rules. What do you gys think should we put it up for deletion talks?Moxy (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Open Street Map violates LINKSTOAVOID? How? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

- Simply dont see how : Alabama an open wiki with rich media is a resource that would help the articles become featured or even GA. We are not here to help other wikis by recruiting by way of spamming Main Page

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
Links to open wikis
Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. Moxy (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The major problem is that it violates the formatting requirements for non-WMF external links. I have just expanded Wikipedia:External links#How_to_link to explain. The template should either be converted to an acceptable inline format (see Template:Facebook) or replaced with manual links and sent to WP:TFD. It is not okay for non-WMF websites to ape the style of the WMF sister project templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, just spotted this conversation. Do you think your last edit do Wikipedia:External links#How_to_link is a consensual one? I do not see any discussion about is, you just added it to a content guideline purely by yourself. The sentence "Do not create graphical templates for non-WMF websites, even if these websites are also wikis." may therefore be removed, because it has no consensus behind it, am I right? I think we should distinguish between links to proprietary/copyrighted content and too free content. I do not see a valid reason why a high-quality free content projects (like OSM or Wikitravel) could not have graphical templates... Does it really matter these are not WMF members? My common sence says it does not. Cheers, --Kozuch (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that a site being part of WMF or not should not be a reason to have, or have not, special linking templkates. It should exist only when the target brings exceptional extra information to the articles. This on does not, thus I see no need for it.

PS: Also, OpenStreetMap is already VERY prominently visible and easy to use when clicking on coordinates. This template will lead to excessive linking as much as to visual clutter. - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Will bring up the templae for deletion in a few days - if not one positive reply is forth coming bedsides from its creator .Moxy (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kozuch, "consensus" means that people think something is a good idea, not that someone has explicitly sought written permission in advance. Even policies and guidelines may be boldly improved.

Nabla, there's a difference between "a special linking template" like {{Facebook}} and a "large graphical template" like {{Commons}}. The community does not permit the second type for any website that is not run by the WMF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started a conversation at WT:EL about the sentence that Kozuch (creator of the disputed template) deleted. Moxy, rather than deleting the template (for which I expect a consensus to be easily found), I'd prefer to see it turned into an acceptable format that doesn't call so much attention to the website, like the {{Facebook}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Several articles today

Seohunter (talk · contribs · count) added several links to a site today that seems to fail WP:ELNO #4/#10. I'm inclined to mass-undo them, but think that getting a second opinion first would be prudent. Thanks. Haus^Talk 00:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the additions except at International Code of Signals where the external link seemed (in a very quick review) to add a rather better summary of the flags. However, it is likely that the same information is available at lots of places, and there are probably too many links at that page anyway. Many of the added external links were an unhelpful list of things, much as in a phone directory, and it is not Wikipedia's role to link to such pages. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! Haus^Talk 08:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted one on Deck (ship) as a bit spammy, while unaware of this conversation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The contributor acknowledges that "I work as an Search engine optimiser" on his user page. I respect his candour. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

I'm in a discussion over at Talk:Circular_buffer#Java_Implementation where a site owner (to his credit he admitted COI up front) seems to be convinced that if his link is 'useful', that he can apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and list the link himself regardless of what Wikipedia:External links might say. Is that right? More voices on the subject would be very much appreciated, either here or over on that talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the offender :) Will someone familiar with Java and C please come over? --Tennenrishin (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the link in question. However, having briefly glanced over the conversation, I'd like to say that one argument Tennerishin has put forward is that the link is "helpful", which has been batted aside. The EL guideline would technically support such a claim under its requirement for all links to be justifiable according to common sense (as well as according to the guideline). However, merely being able to put forward a single reason in its favor does not mean that the link should be included, and how helpful it might be is something I'm not qualified to comment on.

I'd like to congratulate all sides on complying with WP:ELBURDEN by refusing to WP:Edit war over it during the discussion. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, the discussion is a long read, but for the benefit of newcomers, I have summarized my arguments below the 3rd "indentation reset thingy". As far as I can see, none of them have been addressed or acknowledged, so far. --Tennenrishin (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to keep arguing this until you get your way. Wikipedia is not a democracy or a court of law. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tennenrishin, discussions about external links don't operate under formal Lincoln–Douglas debate rules. No one is required to address or acknowledge any of your points. If you want the link included, you have to convince them (not yourself) that their objections are invalid or unimportant. Your goal needs to be winning friends and influencing people, not failing to listen to them or complaining that they haven't listened to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will try to take it. (gulp) --Tennenrishin (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Onislam.net

We have an editor adding a lot of links to this website. Some are news articles being added as ELs, which seems inappropriate, others are like this one: [4]. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

News articles are best used as sources (if they are reliable), and they normally shouldn't be used in external links sections unless they are cover sufficient material that we can't host in our articles. I can't tell how appropriate these particular links are since I don't know what articles they are being linked from. Could you post the user's contribution history? Them From Space 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

College and university yearbook archives

(I think we've dealt with something similar in the recent past but I can't recall when or where...) An editor is adding links to a website with archives of yearbooks to college and university articles and I'd like a few opinions on whether these links are appropriate. I don't think they're terribly good links and I'm a bit turned off by the way they're being mass-added without discussion but others may feel differently so please weigh in. ElKevbo (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yearbooks might be a suitable addition to external links sections. I don't think there's anything in our EL guidelines that prohibit them. This being said, the EL in question is hard to use (at least for me), due to the huge pagefiles that have to load. Are there any other sites that host yearbook scans that are easier to navigate? Them From Space 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is probably related to User:Akadonnew, who was a SPA who added links to this same site (at it's previous URL, evendon.com). - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to sites that require payment or registration

Username AJonwiki or FTonwiki (I do not know if that is the same user) constantly create links to website that require registration or payment. I noticed this when an article to The Banker magazine has been constantly linked by AJonwiki or FTonwiki, although it requires users to register on the website or even pay to read the content. This is against the Wikipedia external links policy.

Although The Banker is a respected magazine belonging to the FT Group (Financial Times), I think that the user shall not create links for the sake of creating links to the FT Group articles which require registration or subscription. In case that this username is run by paid employees of the FT Group to redirect attention of Wikipedia users to articles written by the FT Group (which are not for free or require registration), then this shall be seriously assesed in my view.

Could administrators please review the contribution of FTonwiki and AJonwiki in this regard. See the history of the Basel III article as an example. I am not a registered users, thus, I am writting my observation at this noticeboard for the attention of more experienced users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.27 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that these accounts are adding links to an ==In the news== section, which seems to function as sort of a ==Further reading== section for recent news articles.[5][6] Consequently, I'm not convinced that the WP:External links guideline technically applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag for incorporating external links as inline citations

I'd like to tag an "External links" section suggesting that items be incorporated into the article, as inline citations. I think I remember seeing such a tag before -- or am I dreaming? It might have been in a related section, such as "See also" or "References". Thanks. 128.138.43.231 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Integrate-section}} might work for that purpose. I believe that's the closest we have to {{Further reading cleanup}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

christianmusiccentral.wikispot.org

From what I see, it's a small, closed group of editors and mostly one editor is working on the wiki. It appears that the information presented is accurate and a is collection of links. User:RichLindvall, the primary editor of the wiki in question, is suggesting that his information is a valuable addition to wikipedia articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

LinkSearch results

This is one of those awkward cases regarding a good faith editor and entertainment articles. However, these external links generally appear unhelpful to the article as required by WP:EL (the few I looked at did not add useful information that should not be incorporated into the article), and while the wiki is not exactly "open", WP:ELNO#12 (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors) clearly applies. Finally, there appears to be a COI issue, and there would need to be a discussion from disinterested editors to support the inclusion of a link (if the link satisfied WP:ELYES). Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If by COI you mean the person who is adding the links is the primary editor of that wiki, then I see what you mean. If by COI with the subjects, I'm a bit lost. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean that there may be a COI in that the person adding the links may have a personal connection with the website that is the target of the links. No need to expand on that point unless someone would care to provide reassurance that no COI exists. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion counts as "a discussion from disinterested editors", so I think we can stop worrying about COI.

I agree with Johnuniq that it's an ELNO #12 problem. The wiki's introduction says that "anyone can edit", which is the definition of an open wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters now since the editor has been banned for one year, not because of the site but because the editor was being difficult on many fronts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruling On Justifiable Deletion, Please?

Long story short -- I did a search for Wiki pages on primitive fishes and endangered species. I found several Wiki resources, including pages on alligator gar, paddlefish, and sturgeon, and started reviewing them for accuracy. The information provided was pretty basic, lacked validation in some areas, and had only a few external links. Some of the external links didn't work, or the pages had limited information, etc., so I added an external link from Wiki's sturgeon page to Earthwave Society's sturgeon page in an effort to enhance the Wiki resource. I serve as Exec. Director of Earthwave Society (EWS), and had authority to do so. I did the same for the Wiki gar page, and paddlefish page by adding external links to corresponding species pages at the EWS website. Over the years, EWS has accumulated valuable information and rare footage on some of the primitive fishes. I produced several of the first video documentaries ever produced on gar, the 7 North American species of sturgeon, and the paddlefish. PBS initially aired several of the primitive species documentaries, and received excellent ratings. We also allowed the public to come in and view the documentaries at our Texas location. Of course, not everyone can travel to Texas to watch the programs, so we made them available at the EWS website for a small donation which includes the cost of duplication, shipping & handling. There are also several reviews and testimonials at the EWS website from students, teachers, and researchers who appreciate the excellent resources at the EWS website.

So why were the external links deleted by Wiki editors? The responses I received including the following comments: "unnecessary link", "spam", "purely promotional", and "only there to sell product". Of course none of their reasons are valid, and here's why.....

Wiki Guidelines specifically state in the External Link section under Advertising and conflicts of interest Shortcuts: WP:ADV WP:EL#ADV Main pages: ....

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link.

(snip) (1) Earthwave Society neither created the Wiki pages in question, nor are they connected to the developers of those pages. - justification (2) Wiki Guidelines clearly allows for links to non-profits who solicit donations, and/or sites that earn money through sales, etc. - justification (3) A link to Earthwave's website provides immediate benefit to Wiki readers who click on the link - Wiki's Alligator Gar page to Earthwave's Alligator Gar page, etc. - justification (4) Earthwave's website also makes available important educational material (DVDs) which includes rare footage and documentation that isn't available anywhere else. - justification

I anxiously look forward to the general consensus in hopes it will resolve this issue once and for all. Atsme (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

The links I saw had nothing to do with the articles. For instance, on the Alligator Gar page she provided a link to her personal site with nothing about Alligator Gars on it...Smarkflea (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Smarkflea's comment is incorrect. I'm not sure why he focused on that one link - it was a simple announcement that linked to a photographic resource which is perfectly acceptable per Wiki guidelines. It is not the job of Wiki editors to judge every link on a 3rd party site. Below the announcement which included the photography link is a link to the organization's current projects which leads to the alligator gar page. That page includes important information with rare photographs. In fact, almost all of the pages, including the index page have important conservation messages, all of which are important to alligator gar. Please review the site in its entirety before you pass judgement. Too many Wiki editors are "trigger happy", and are not taking the time necessary to analyze the benefits of external links as an important RESOURCE for Wiki readers. They tend to become fixated on criticism, and have even manufactured reasons for not including them rather than being open minded enough to realize the benefits. I did make a suggestion to the organization to reword the photo link on the index page as a result of Smarkflea's comment, even though it wasn't required. Also, please keep in mind the link I added originally was to www.earthwave.org/gar.htm, and it was deleted by a prior editor, so I tried to accommodate that editor by linking to the index.html page. That didn't satisfy him either. Again, both links are acceptable resources according to the Wiki Guidelines I recited above, and they do provide immediate benefit to Wiki readers.

The link on the Crayfish page seemed like an ad to me. [7] There is nothing on the page linked to, http://www.earthwave.org/crayfish.htm that isn't just advertising a product. After edit warring a bit, a link was added just to their main page and not the crayfish page itself. The link on the Paddlefish page links to a similar ad. "These educational video documentaries are being distributed by Earthwave Society Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to conservation through information and education. Your contribution covers the cost of duplication, video packaging, shipping and handling." They charge $24.95 though, so I don't think it goes to the cost of duplication, and they add to that price for shipping and handling if you try to buy something. Does the poster of these links get a large percentage of the money from sales, or a high salary and possible bonuses? Dream Focus 20:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Dream Focus' comment, I repeat, Wikipedia's External Link Policy clearly states, and I quote: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are NOT prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations". Unfortunately, that particular guideline is what this particular little group of Wiki editors seemed to overlook. Also, there are many other pages at the Earthwave Society website that include important information regarding the environment and conservation for Wiki readers, and considering crayfish are a keystone species which are important to riverine environments, the entire Earthwave Society site is an important resource. The link provides immediate benefit to Wiki readers because it provides information on how to obtain a valuable and important resource for a small donation. It doesn't matter what the organization charges, or that they charge at all because earning money through sales is a perfectly acceptable practice according to Wiki Guidelines. With regards to the page being a valuable resource to education, please read the following excerpt which is an unsolicited email from a teacher. It is located on the same page with the ordering information....

From: Gayle XXXX, 4th Grade Teacher Date: January 29, 2011 6:36:42 PM CST Subject: Re: America's Crayfish
I just received my DVD of America's Crayfish/Crawling In Troubled Waters. It is very nicely done and I think my 4th graders will really enjoy it. In the spring, we study the FOSS science unit: Structures of Life (bean sprouts and then crayfish). This is really a highlight of the year and kids do get very attached to "their" crayfish. I usually buy some Cajun Crayfish (pre-cooked) from a grocery store so they can taste them at the end of the unit. (Teachers freeze them at the end of the unit, or the custodian takes them home and eats them ;) We do have crayfish in the streams here in eastern Washington state, and sometimes kids catch them and bring them in to compare with the ones we buy from a distributor in the south. I will recommend this DVD to other teachers in the district because I think the information is really interesting for kids and easy to understand. Thank you.

Atsme (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

The link is not perfectly acceptable as it is not direct. Some of the other links, including the crayfish one, have no real educational content. They are just meant to sell DVD's, which may be educational, but do not provide valid links as they have no real information on the page...Smarkflea (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly agree that link is not appropriate, as it's largely an advertisement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not available to promote noble causes. The fact that this issue is being discussed strenuously in several locations is a demonstration that a COI issue is involved. The links that I checked do not satisfy WP:ELYES as there is no useful information at the linked page (useful = help reader to understand topic). External links are not a means to show every available source of information on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok -- then I respectfully request that you explain why the following pages and links are acceptable, yet the Earthwave Society pages are not: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/River_Monsters (they sell videos/DVDs, and it is a PAID channel not free to the public as is PBS which is where Earthwave Society's programs aired) links - http://animal.discovery.com/tv/river-monsters/ (complete with commercial advertising - Earthwave Society's site does not have any commercials, and it asks only for contributions, not sales) I'm very interested in the responses.... Atsme (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

River Monsters has a page because it is a notable television show. You're missing the point. The point is your links don't add anything to the articles...Smarkflea (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. "River Monsters" is televised on a PAID network. It is not available to the public for free, and they sell their episodes on DVD for profit. "Alligator Gar: Predator Or Prey" was a notable television program that aired on PBS which is FREE to the public. It was the #1 rated program in primetime during the July sweeps. Earthwave Society is a non-profit educational entity, and offers DVDs to the public in exchange for a donation to cover expenses. So who is missing the point? Atsme (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Again, River Monsters has a page because it is a notable television show. Whether your organization is free or not is not the point. Your links don't add anything to the articles and are basically for distributing product...Smarkflea (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again...Earthwave Society's website adds A LOT to the articles - example....Alligator Gar....
Following is an excerpt from the Alligator Gar page at Earthwave Society which includes information that is not available on the Wiki page, including access to an IN-DEPTH DVD on the life history cycle of the species....
The rod and reel world record alligator gar weighed 290 lbs, and the trot line, or unrestricted division record weighed 302 lb. Both were caught in the Rio Grande River back in the 1950s, and measured a little over 7-1/2 ft in length. Alligator gars are widely sought after by bowhunters, but a much smaller following of anglers fish for them for sport. The states of Texas and Louisiana permit regulated commercial fishing for alligator gars, however, the demand is nominal. The hard, ganoid scales on alligator gars protect them like a suit of armor. Some Native American Indians used the scales as arrowheads, and for adornment on their tribal dress. Although rare, ganoid scales are still being used as jewelry today. Many researchers see gars as a link between the scientific research of today and what has evolved from a primitive past. Gars can breathe both air and water, which is one of the reasons they are still around today. Unfortunately, we cannot be as optimistic about their future.
Atsme (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

One more note -- Earthwave Society was the first in history - again, FIRST in history to video document the life history cycle of alligator gar, and the FIRST in history to produce a television documentary on alligaor gar which set the stage, or pioneered, if you will, much of the research that is being conducted today. If you dig deeper, you will most likely find that some of the information contained on the Wiki page was made available to those researchers as a result of the research and documentation performed by Earthwave Society back in 1992. Thank you.

Atsme (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

That's great, but there is still an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as advertising issue here. As with many similar arguments, this is a "site owner" vs. "community consensus" issue. The latter prevails. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a mixed bag. The Crayfish link has essentially zero information beyond "buy our video". The Alligator Gar link, though, has a couple paragraphs of reasonably OK text. The link at Sturgeon is just to the organization's main page; all I could find out about sturgeons after drilling down was "buy our video". The Paddlefish has a little info, as a byproduct of describing the video (buy it!) rather than discussing paddlefish per se. All in all the ratio of useful information to "add to cart" buttons is pretty darn low. Atsme, I'd let it go. Spend the energy on getting a decent web design going instead, or something. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem plaguing this issue is that the editors who are debating the validity of the external link are failing to grasp the concept of what purpose an external link actually serves. There are hundreds, no thousands of external links on Wiki pages to websites that sell product, are self-promotional, and/or connected directly to the Wiki page -- see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/River_Monsters (independent producer, and they sell videos/DVDs, and their program airs on PAID SUBSCRIPTION channel not free to the public as is PBS which is where Earthwave Society's programs aired) and that page includes an external link to the PAID CHANNEL @ http://animal.discovery.com/tv/river-monsters/ (complete with commercial advertising - Earthwave Society's site does not have any commercials, and it asks only for contributions, not sales). THERE IS NOTHING INFORMATIONAL ON EITHER THE MAIN WIKI PAGE, OR THE EXTERNAL LINK. Please keep in mind, Wiki editors do not have jurisdiction over the websites connected to the external links. Your jurisdiction is limited to whether or not the link provides a resource that benefits the Wiki reader, regardless of whether that resource happens to be a book, a video, a DVD, a manuscript, an iTunes App, etc. The Wiki page is where the written information is supposed to be, and the information should be validated, and complete with references, etc. The external links are there to provide additional resources for Wiki readers, regardless of whether or not there is a charge for those resources at the 3rd party site. The latter is stated very clearly in the Wiki Guidelines for external links. The editors who have replied to my posts really need to get a grasp on this aspect of external links. I will again quote from the Wiki Guidelines in all caps to make my point: LINKS TO POTENTIALLY REVENUE-GENERATING WEB PAGES ARE NOT PROHIBITED, EVEN THOUGH THE WEBSITE OWNER MIGHT EARN MONEY THROUGH ADVERTISEMENTS, SALES, OR (IN THE CASE OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS) DONATIONS. I have tried my best to help you understand, but it appears I am beating a dead horse. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, so I'm taking this issue further up the ladder, right to the top. It truly is sad that a viable resource is being stifled because a handful of volunteer editors are unable to grasp the concept of what is, and isn't acceptable even when the Guidelines are staring them in the face. I will leave you with one thought -- let's say you're a college student, and you've been assigned to do a thesis on the seven North American species of sturgeon. You Google it, find a link to a Wiki page. You visit that page, and read what's there. You scroll down to the links. You see Earthwave Society's link. You visit that site. You see there is a one-hour documentary available on DVD which maps out the entire life history cycle on all seven species. Would you consider that a valuable resource??? Have a good night. Atsme (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Atsme, there are several points here. First there is the conflict of interest, though that certainly does not prohibit or forbid you to add information/links yourself. It is however strongly advised to bring it to talkpages, and let other editors without a conflict of interest add the links for you, when there is consensus to insert it.

Now for the links itself. You should note, that Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia. We rely on info, not on external links. We do not add external links because they are about the subject, we do not add external links because they exist, whatever. External links do need to pass a certain merit of inclusion. In basis "Some external links are welcome ..., but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." We are not a linkfarm, we are not an internet directory (what this is based on is the parts of the 'What wikipedia is not' policy - WP:NOT#LINKFARM, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY).

That a page linked to is commercial in nature, or even primarily for making money - in the end that is true for practically every site out there, they all make money in some way for some reason. The threshold is whether the information on the external page is adding to the page, "All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.". You above take the example:

The rod and reel world record alligator gar weighed 290 lbs, and the trot line, or unrestricted division record weighed 302 lb. Both were caught in the Rio Grande River back in the 1950s, and measured a little over 7-1/2 ft in length.
Alligator gars are widely sought after by bowhunters, but a much smaller following of anglers fish for them for sport. The states of Texas and Louisiana permit regulated commercial fishing for alligator gars, however, the demand is nominal.
The hard, ganoid scales on alligator gars protect them like a suit of armor. Some Native American Indians used the scales as arrowheads, and for adornment on their tribal dress. Although rare, ganoid scales are still being used as jewelry today.
Many researchers see gars as a link between the scientific research of today and what has evolved from a primitive past. Gars can breathe both air and water, which is one of the reasons they are still around today. Unfortunately, we cannot be as optimistic about their future.

That is either already in the article (some of it is even reliably referenced!), or could easily be included. I am sorry, but that information you provide does not add anything to the article itself. There is no need to link to it. Not saying anything about the seriousness of your site, anyone could write a page on alligator gar and add it as an external link to Alligator gar, but as stated above, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Regarding the other (commercial) links on the page that are already there - first of all they are likely inserted by editors who do not have a conflict of interest with the specific link, and secondly they saw, maybe at the time of insertion, that the page did give information which was not included or maybe could not be included. But even if neither was true at that point or now, it may be that the other link also does not belong on the page - it is by no means a reason to add yours as well. That type of reasoning is on the way to WP:SPAMHOLE via WP:OTHERLINKS-arguments.

All in all, as I see that you are not going to take no for an answer from all those who have concerns (however experienced they are, however they first encountered the situation), and think that escalating the situation will help, I would first suggest that you make contact with a suitable WikiProject. WikiProjects group editors with similar interests and knowledge. You can find a list via Wikipedia:WikiProject. They may be very interested in your site, and they may be able to use it to expand our articles. Similarly, you can do that yourself. You could even rewrite parts of articles yourself (the last sentence of the lede on Alligator gar could certainly be expanded based on your knowledge, and is also then in dire need of a proper reference - see the reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy for more info on those). There may even be pages where your link would be a suitable external link (though the cases where you added it now are all questionable per above reasons).

The external links guideline is written by many editors, and it outlines pretty well what external links serve for. But I do think that you should first understand, that external links are not the goal of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't think these links add much. Here are some of the problems:

The actual content about each fish that is directly on the linked pages is less than what ought to be in the article. This is an WP:ELNO#EL1 violation.
Links to the films themselves probably would add a lot to the article, but you're not linking to the films themselves; you're linking to page through which one could obtain the film through the mail. That adds zero immediate benefit to the reader. External links are about immediate benefit, not about delayed gratification after waiting for mail order to be processed. To give a similar example, we place a high priority on linking to the text of a famous book if the text is available—but we prohibit external links to pages through which a person could obtain the famous book through the mail, e.g., a bookstore.
The subject of the linked pages is not, strictly speaking, "Alligator gar"; it is "There is a documentary film about alligator gar". This is close, but not quite, what we require for something to be "on-topic" (requirement for 100% of external links, stated in third sentence).

Additionally, you might benefit from reading both WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ELOFFICIAL. The link at the TV show that you're fussing about is exempt from nearly all of the normal rules because it is the official website of that article's subject. Your documentary films would be the subject of articles entirely dedicated to the films, but not to articles about the film's subject.

Finally, the external links guideline does not discriminate between non-profit and for-profit links. A link to a mail-order film at your non-profit's website is just as inappropriate as a link to the same mail-order film at Amazon.com. So the fact that your org is a non-profit is truly irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most comments are missing the main point as to why Earthwave links are promotional--they lack any additional content, particularly in-depth content. I've pointed this out a couple of times following someone else's deletion of Earthwave links and I also left a similar explanation on Atsme's talk page. Linking to a "buy" page for a product is not an external link. The product itself may well be an "additional reference"--and, perhaps, if the respective bibliographic information is offered as such, most editors would accept it (provided that the description of the DVD is listed, not just a link to the "buy" page). But, as it stands now, these links offer no information at all--the content is hidden inside the DVD that Earthwave invites people to buy. Thus they fail the most basic External Link premise.

In addition, Atsme's behavior in response to deletions has been less than productive--he now posts screaming headers that his links are perfectly legitimate and no one should delete them (I respectfully but firmly disagree with both assertions). On some occasions s/he engaged in edit-warring by simply obstinately repeating the same nonsensical disclaimer and then re-posting the links. There have been also some links posted under other accounts, under similar circumstances, which may well fall under sock-puppetry. Obviously, banning an unwitting sock-puppet is counterproductive, unless s/he understands the reason for the ban. Reading the comments above (and more below) is making me wonder if Atsme has any intent to even try to understand what the issue is--s/he keeps repeating the same assertions, sometimes adding extra information, but still largely sticking to the same victimhood talking points. The bottom line is, Atsme should be aware by now that posting links to Earthwave is just wrong and unacceptable--it makes no difference, in the end, what the reason is. To put it simply, others just won't put up with it. A sane person would stop arguing and appealing to (misguided) rationality and just accept the outcome. Obviously, others (me included) believe there is a rational basis for banning these links. Even if you don't accept the rationality of these assertions, just accept them and move on--you're not going to win. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dirk & WhatamIdoing -Thank you for your informative replies, and for taking time to help me understand your decisions. I truly do appreciate it, and also realize it is over and above the call of duty. Thank you, again. I didn't quite understand why a link to our site wasn't acceptable when the River Monsters Wiki page and its link to the Discovery were, especially in light of the guidelines you cited above, but I won't belabor the point. Perhaps I should have approached it from a programming perspective rather than a conservation organization, although programs are just one part of the work we do. We have no intention of trying to re-add the link at this time. Question Dirk -- you said "First there is the conflict of interest, though that certainly does not prohibit or forbid you to add information/links yourself." Would you be so kind as to tell me what creates the conflict of interest? I would also like to add that I have gleaned important information from some of your replies, and the email exchanges I've had with other editors and Admins, most of whom were helpful, courteous, and above all patient and willing to help. Intelligent, mature behavior with thoughtful, helpful replies are more in line with what I expected at Wikipedia rather than the delete'cha, warn'ya, block'ya mentality I experienced in the beginning. No finger pointing, no grudges, no vendetta - bygones. I knew if I would just be patient, and remain steadfast in my quest for knowledge and understanding, we would eventually reach productive discourse. Hallelujah!! We have arrived. *lol*

Alex - you really should spend less time trying to find ways to ban another editor/contributor, and work a little harder at productive correspondence. You'll be much happier for it. I am not irrational as you allege, and quite frankly, that was very rude of you to even suggest it. My responses have been courteous, and to the point. I have used upper case for emphasis, and it should not be mistaken as screaming. Your interpretation of screaming reminds of high school message board mentality. I am not some child who plays on message boards, and incites riots. I have been with Earthwave Society as their Executive Director since inception, and we have made great strides in the realm of conservation, the environment, and endangered species. Perhaps if you would try to understand my position, you might not be as quick to cast people into defined roles based on ill conceived conclusions. The reason behind my re-adding links after deletion is quite simple - I changed the urls thinking the new ones would be acceptable according to the standards of whoever was deleting them. And then it appeared as though I was being harassed by a small group of editors who were playing some kind of silly game by continuously deleting the links without valid explanation. That's why I decided it was best to bring my issue to the talk pages. I still disagree with the reason for deletion, and I am having a hard time understanding why the River Monsters page and its links are acceptable simply because they're tv shows, and follow a different standard. Interesting, and very unlike an encyclopedia, especially when you consider all the arguments against our link. Again, I will not belabor the point. It's out there, you've made your point, so let your conscience be your guide. Have a great week. Atsme (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

You have problems... I don't spend any time looking for people to ban, although I do let people know when they cross the line (as others would do for me, should I cross the line). And I was not being rude when I said you were not being rational. If anything, you exhibited rudeness by sticking to your guns and absolutely refusing to listen to anyone. My response has been far milder than some--in fact, I advocated for explaining your error to you and not banning you, while others simply deleted your posts. As for screaming, if the shoe fits... The problem is, only you know what you meant--the rest of us know what we can read. And when someone posts "DO NOT DELETE MY LINKS" that looks like screaming (for emphasis). Frankly, I do not understand how you've become an Executive Director of a non-profit, because your comments display a profound ignorance of basic referencing techniques (not understanding when information is immediately available and when it is not) and equally profound disrespect for opinions of others. The difference between the River Monsters site and Earthwave is that the former makes much of its information available on-line, even though it also has products to sell, while the latter displays virtually no useful information on-line, even though it may have much content to offer. If your videos were posted for streaming, the site would easily qualify for External Links. A major contributing issue here is your failure to accept your bias--as the Executive Director. You should not be posting any information directly linking to your organization, unless its relevance is clear and undisputed. You keep saying "I will not belabor the point", yet, you keep doing just that--and not just in one location, but next to every one of your deleted links. Take a break, do something else--perhaps learn the rules that you think you're following (quite clearly, you're not). Learn some other rules breaking which antagonizes other editors. But, please, don't post any more links to Earthwave unless and until your organization decides that it wants to make some of the information on those DVDs to be available directly on-line. Alex.deWitte (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that both of you should stop talking about the other person. If we're all convinced (for better or worse) that there's no agreement to include these links, then we're done here. I'm sure that all of us have better things to do than to point fingers and discuss the relative merits of being "emotional" or "rational" about our goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another" Sigmund Freud Atsme (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Jason Raize external link

A link to my website at http://www.jasonraize.net was flagged as a "fan site" and removed from the Wikipedia article for Jason Raize (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jason_Raize), an actor/singer and a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Environment Programme who died in 2004. This site is a comprehensive resource with over 140 pages of detailed information - directly from press releases, press clippings, interviews, and other credited sources - about Jason's projects in theater, film, music, and goodwill work. I am not competing with other sites for traffic: Jason's official website is inactive, and searching for "Jason Raize" on major search engines primarily yields articles about his death. I only seek to provide people with a source for more information about the late actor's life and career beyond the basic summary included on his Wikipedia page.

All data on my site comes from the same sources cited on Jason's Wikipedia page. In fact, the person who first posted Jason's biography to Wikipedia in 2006 took it verbatim from an earlier version of my website (see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jason_Raize&diff=449256529&oldid=58712831 and http://web.archive.org/web/20060105014937/http://locket.net/raize/biography.html) without my knowledge or consent; while this person originally credited my site, this line was quickly removed. I've since added citations for data in Jason's Wikipedia biography to demonstrate accuracy, with most references citing specific published articles; as Wikipedia still requests improved citations, I will take time to update references that currently cite my site's summary pages to now cite my original sources.

I hope that you will consider allowing me to re-post http://www.jasonraize.net as an external link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jason_Raize so that readers are aware of the only active site dedicated to Jason Raize's life and career. Thank you for reviewing this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizeresource (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to improve the article, and for your very polite and well-explained summary of the situation. If you would like help addressing the copyright violations (from the person copying your website verbatim), please consider sending e-mail to the address listed at WP:COPYVIO.

However, in terms of a link under ==External links==, we normally do not duplicate links in both the ==References== and EL section. There are now many links to this website in the references section, so under normal circumstances, we would avoid adding it also under the EL section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with having that site under external links, however I might have one with using it as a source for the WP article. The WP article should use the sources given on that website but not treat the website itself as a source, at best it can be used for providing online copies of the cited sources (in the form of a deep link).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. If the issue is that the site should not be listed in both the references and external links section, my preference is to list the site in the EL section. As such, I've updated all references to cite only my original sources, and re-posted the site as an external link since your responses indicate that this is acceptable. If it is permissible to also add deep links in the references section to the copies of articles available on the site, let me know and I will re-add these links.

Thanks also for the information about copyright violations. I do not wish to file a report at this time; I was only concerned with being advised that my site was not a reliable source when nearly all the information on the WP article came directly from my site! As I've spent a great deal of time ensuring that all data on my site comes from reliable sources, I'm happy to use my sources to improve the WP article as well. Raizeresource (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ukulele External Link

I'd like to be added again to the ukulele page. My site, easyukulele.com delivers free information and lessons, all about the ukulele. I was wondering why did I get removed? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Kainoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoa21 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specific case in question, but generally Wikipedia is WP:NOT#HOWTO, so links to free lessons might not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article to people.

As for information, does the page previously being linked on your website provide more (not counting the lessons and how-to material) information than a really well-written article about ukuleles would? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

sounds.bl.uk

Over at WT:CM, the question was raised of whether it was permissible to link to the British Library's Archival Sound Recordings site. Attempting to access, for example, Artur Rubenstein playing Chopin's Nocturne No. 1 gives a message that "Due to copyright restrictions this recording is only available to users in member states of the European Union", which would seem on the face of it to violate WP:ELNO#7. On the other hand, "member states of the EU" does include a whole lot of people who could benefit from these links. Opinions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I read #7 as being whole sites. The fact that I can click through to that page from the US and still get valid info (covers, metadata, etc.) probably would make it acceptable, even though I can't hear the sound file. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If we are linking there for the purpose of hearing a sound file, then no it wouldn't be appropriate. But if we are linking there for the text files it would be. So links such as "hear this at the British Library" should be discouraged but any other use shouldn't be. Them From Space 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Embedded lists with sourced entries: linkspam? OR?

In Plagiarism detection#Academic text-document plagiarism systems, there is an embedded list of detection systems. The list persisted for quite a long time with several red links, with no sources verifying the redlinked items. I boldly sourced (with multiple overlapping WP:RS) wherever possible, removed items without RS and called it improved. At Talk:Plagiarism detection#Embedded list of tools there is a debate as to whether this is just external links spam (or even original research). Third opinion chimed in three times, but still no consensus. Further discussion is now invited, per the 3O's suggestion. I'd like it settled either way by a conensus-of-several, by which I will abide. --Lexein (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ormond College

Not sure where to take this, but a URL at this article contains both ] and [ characters, causing it to chop:

http://www.vafa.com.au/index.php?id=13&tx_ttnews[pointer]=12&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=316&tx_ttnews[backPid]=9&cHash=f6c87664f5

Displays as:

http://www.vafa.com.au/index.php?id=13&tx_ttnews[pointer]=12&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=316&tx_ttnews[backPid]=9&cHash=f6c87664f5

Do we have a wok-around for this? -- WikHead (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. If you go to the actual website, the problem characters get taken out of the address bar, giving you a clean link to work with. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! I had visited the website a few times, and nothing appeared to change in my address bar, even with a refresh... perhaps a difference in web-browsers?? Regardless, it's now fixed and that's what matters. Cheers! -- WikHead (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the above had not worked, you would use percent-encoding to replace the square brackets with their coded values. By the way, awesome advice is available at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Film compilations for film directors

This is a continuation of the question of whether video compilations, especially where the uploader is the apparent copyright owner (per U.S. laws), are OK to include for director articles. They seem relevant, beneficial and encyclopedic for visual media articles about their primary creators. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page (the linked discussion above) I don't think these provide any encyclopedic material. We aren't a film-hosting service, we are an educational resource. If a reader can't learn something from the videos we shouldn't link to them. If the videos would include text explaining a particular director's style, it would be different, but unexplained film clips (such as this example) aren't good enough. Them From Space 04:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually if the clip is legal I don't see why it can't be used. Though for the exact merit of such a link one has to look at individual cases.

Nevertheless as far as the learning is concerned, WP is not a textbook and not everything has to spilled out explicitly. If we have an article on a musician or an artist we would naturally link to illustustration or compilation of his/her work, no matter whether they are explained in the WP article in particular or not. Another thing is that readers (depending on their background and interest) can actually learn from such compilations or find interesting information in them (even without explicit commentary). In the case of actors for can see facial expression, body language, voice, the actual acting of an actor or famous scenes which is definitely interesting to readers. In the case of directors it might be less obvious, but still certain signature scenes of his movies might be interesting to readers.

As far as the hosting remark is concerned, I don't quite get that. The question as I understood it was about providing a link in WP article not about hosting. The question whether we should host such things would be a question that needs to be discussed in commons, but imho even there the answers might be yes, but completely independent of WP. Commons is an (free) media archive on its own right and for media that is of public interest or potentially useful for any wikimedia project (say for instance awikibook on movies or harold loyd).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Clips like these shouldn't be used because they are not an encyclopedic resource. I would even prefer linking to unedited clips of important scenes (in a limited manner according to fair use) to clips so heavily edited as to be without copyright. The former can teach readers about a particular director's style, the latter seems more for fun and games. Them From Space 05:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with fun and games either if it profits the reader. Again we're not a textbook nor a film class. However I agree that you can only link to clips where there are clearly no copyright issues. The general answer to the question "Can we link (legal) clips or clip compilations?" is yes. However each case needs to be judged individually and we need to avoid turning into (questionable) clip link farm. As far as the Harold Lloyd clip in question is concerned, readers can get an impression of Lloyds acting and the style of his movies in general (slapstick), so it is not entirely pointless to link it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I see this in the reverse way: by the time the reader has read a thousand words of such text about a director, describing their style, subjects, cinematography, methods of showing drama or comedy, and a list of their films, a film clip compilation at the very end of the article is of immense value. I like the Chinese proverb, "One hundred tellings are not equal to one seeing." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I essentially agree. However Themfromspace's has a point in so far that not all clips might be equally well suited. Still personally I'd prefer a clip that is at least somewhat useful to (many) readers rather than having no clip at all because it's not optimal.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

True. Most of the compilations I've ever linked to were ones that I felt were well made and showed clearly representative aspects of a director's work. I've only linked to ~~uploaded~~ a few actor compilations, since most of the ones I've come across were not a good sampling. I've also avoided compilations of particular film clips. I mostly focus on directors. How many words of text would be needed to replace this one for Stanley Kubrick, for example? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the Stanley Kubrick link (just above) and believe that it fails WP:EL. There needs to be some reason for adding a link (particularly when adding 12 links to self-created compilations), yet the video is in essence a fanpage where an individual has selected video snatches purely for their appeal—there is no attempt at an analysis, nor is there a claim that the extracts are in some way representative of the director's style. Anyone wanting clips can put "stanley kubrick video" into Google (or "stanley kubrick compilation"), and it is not Wikipedia's role to provide a directory of such links. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What did you mean by the phrase "self-created?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I fixed my word error earlier, since I didn't mean "upload" to Youtube, but "linked to." None of the ones I've ever linked to were anything I did. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By "self created" I mean that circumstantial evidence suggests that the compilations were created by the person who posted the links to those compilations (of course there is no connection with the creator of the original material used in the compilations). Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you think I did those compilations? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would you think that? I thought we were discussing the links to compilations added by this user (which are on vimeo, and which appear to be "by" the same user name). Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you were were just discussing my link to the Kubrick video. In any case, I don't think adding one compilation link for a director is equivalant to providing a "directory of such links," and one link per article is all the user added. Considering the massive amount of unsourced, untrue, and unchallenged commentary in so many articles, a multimedia link seems to be especially useful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Collected news and commentary

I noticed a post at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Further reading/External links which draws attention to discussions to add several external links to two articles. As mentioned, the issue applies to a lot of articles: should "collected news and commentary" links be used? I don't think Jimbo's talk is the right place to continue the discussion. The article talk pages are Talk:Hugo Chávez#External links and Talk:Hamid Karzai#External_links. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A few of these were recently posted by User:75.60.17.118. I agree with the posters (so far) at the two talkpage discussions who feel these are afoul of WP:NOTDIR. The templates can be used in an IAR manner where the collected news appearances are relevant to a particular article, but this should be done rarely. Them From Space 05:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

- I have seen this sort thing is almost common and generally accepted? Ed Milliband#External links - David Cameron#External links - Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Its against WP:EL, WP:NOTDIR, and should be removed when seen. Like YouTube videos made by random people, there will be editors who are unaware of the policies and will keep re-adding them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Its common practice I reverted your removal at Ed Miliband - it just passed a GA. I suggest your start a discussion because common practice sets a lot of weight here. Its not a bit like youtube videos made by random people - these are all intrinsically reliable wikipedia sources - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Then common practice is against two policies, and you're edit warring to keep linkcruft which violates them in place. I'm not impressed with GA; GA sets a low bar for EL compliance. Its like Youtube in the respect that they should be used rarely, and carefully, and are often added simply because they exist. That they meet RS does not make them appropriate for every single freaking bio on the site. Puppy has spoken, Puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Common practice is an assertion of acceptable whatever the guidelines say. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
By that logic, pure spam and links to copyright violations would be acceptable just because a lot of clueless people who don't bother to read our policies and guidelines do it. See also WP:EXISTS. DreamGuy (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
That is completely false representation of peoples comments. Spam links and copyright violations can and should be removed on sight, that position has nothing to do with this situation. Clueless is just your attacking POV. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are policies, not guidelines, Rob. Dang, you're not on your best game this morning, are you? You edit war to revert a null edit, and now you're confusing policy and guideline. Go get some coffee. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

- Jimmy says it well - :I think our existing EL policy is either too strict, or interpreted too strictly. I have seen this in several cases now. (I am NOT commenting on the current examples here; if I comment on them, I will comment on the appropriate talk pages.) I'm making a philosophical point that I think NOTDIR does not imply, in any way, that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should be avoided. This is particularly true when we recognize that many articles are not featured articles and not likely to become featured articles anytime soon. Avoiding linking to something because it contains information that we would have directly, if we had a featured article, is silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 2:38 pm, Today (UTC+1) - Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jimmy's not exactly always up on current policies and practices. And I think he'd be the first to say that his opinion is generally that, an opinion, no more nor less than other editors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He is however imho correct and by far not the only one seeing it that way. This has been discussed in the past without a real solution or consent (see discussion archives). The EL policy is imho (intentionally) overstated to allow quality assurance an (undefeatable) killer argument against any link it deems inappropriate and in particular to block spam effectively without extensive discussions on each link. So far so good. However in practice this only works because the policy is mostly used with a common sense and restraint, i.e. many EL that may formally fail the policy but are arguable helpful/useful to readers are tolerated. But the policy will fail utterly if it is used without restraint an/or gaming/wiki lawyering to kick out EL at personal whim.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:EL should not be pursued too mechanically (although considerable tenaciousness is often required when combating enthusiastic SPA link adders). However, this discussion has not addressed the central issue: Should there be a "collection" link in an article where the subject is mentioned in that collection? Should "collection" links be in WP:ELYES? In WP:ELMAYBE? Merging four examples mentioned above, here are all the collection links that one person might have (the "External links/Noticeboard" would be the article name):

Appearances on C-SPAN
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 at IMDb
Works by or about External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 collected news and commentary at Al Jazeera English
{{Economist topic|hugo-chavez}}
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 collected news and commentary at The Guardian
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 collected news and commentary at The New York Times
"External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 collected news and commentary". The Wall Street Journal.
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 on Charlie Rose
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 collected news and commentary at Dawn
Ed Miliband collected news and commentary at The London Evening Standard
Ed Miliband collected news and commentary at The Telegraph
External links/Noticeboard/Archive 9 at TED

Surely collection links should only be used rarely—for cases where the subject is very notable, and where the collection gives real value, and where the length of the collection means it is better to link to the collection rather than to a few selected pages? Many of the above collection examples seem low value to me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Imho occasionally an individual link compiling most online resources (or compiling individual media collections) related to article's subject is ok. That's similar to linking to the open directory project which we already allow explicitly. So if we plan to mention it explicitly in the policy I'd suggest under EL:MAYBE. What I'm skeptical about however is to link collections of a particular media outlet (that should be the exception), because then we might get either media wars as in WSJ versus Economists collections or getting a "collection link farm". In many cases there might be only a very few links of the a media collection that stand out anyway, then I rather link them individually. Say Chavez has given an extensive video interview on Charlie Rose or Al Jazeera or there's a single extensive background article on Chavez in the Economist, then I would link those individually rather giving a collection link that contains anything Al Jazeera or the Economist ever reported on Chavez (including many small news pieces, who might at best be useful for inline references). So in a sense provide the best and cut the crap.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

School video re: construction features

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXriAhgjz1c

The user that added it originally has claimed that similar articles are also linked from other school articles, so I thought it best to get a centralized discussion on the value of the link rather than needing to repeat it on each article's talk page. My personal belief is that the material is already adequately stated and sourced in the section Lynnwood High School#New Lynnwood High School, so the video does not meet the criteria of a link "whose contents might be beyond the scope of inclusion in the article" - so the link fails inclusion criteria of both WP:EL and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OTHER. However, in case others see value I'm not, I wanted to bring this up for discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've notified the other editor involved of this discussion, as well as notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools that there is a discussion started of which the project may have an interest. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of de-spamming articles and have made it my mission to do so for the past couple of years. However, this is the type of link that I would leave in place. If you look at WP:ELNO, the very first of the criteria is about adding value over and above what the article would be were it to reach FA quality. Whatever level the article reached, nothing could convey what the new build is like (or better support the article content) than to show such a well-produced video. I'm normally wary of Youtube content because of the huge amount of piracy (see WP:ELNEVER), but in this case there is no copyright issue as the video has been uploaded by the creator - http://www.studio216.com/ I wholeheartedly support the retention of this link in this article, and would support similar quality videos in other school articles. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it if it's used as a citation or even as a "see also" in another citation. I'm not of the persuasion that all Youtube links are equally good or bad, so it should be on a case-by-case basis. Here I think the video could be of assistance in an article that has almost no citations at all. I would not, however, be supportive of it being in the "external links" section since it's about the building and not the school. Some of the other ELs on the page should probably be removed too outside the official school website, district website, and maybe an official report of the school if it isn't already cited in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A school is the sum of the building, the staff, and the students. The building - the environment in which the students learn and the staff work - is important and can make a significant difference to the quality and success of learning. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why there is a section within school articles for facilities. But in the end, the facity itself is part of the actual subject. That's more an issue for the schools project than EL, though. The purpose of ELs is to provide additional information on the subject that is beyond the encyclopedic scope of a Wikipedia article. Encyclopedic info in the video should be worked into the article (which is quite heavy in covering the "new" building more than much else). Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem using it as a source or accompanying another source, but I would have a problem just using it in the list of External links at the end since I view that as more tangential information than vital information about the school. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As per Bob Re-born, I also "wholeheartedly support the retention of this link in this article, and would support similar quality videos in other school articles". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that videos should be informational in nature and not (blatant) advertisements. ElKevbo (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to wiki.creativecommons.org

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. We've recently had a request for a Third Opinion regarding the link added in this edit, over which an edit war has occurred. I'm not involved in the war, but the participants could use some knowledgeable guidance (and I'm not an expert on EL's). The primary discussion is on that article's talk page and on the proposing editor's talk page here. I will notify the participants, John Torn, Dia^, and Materialscientist of this discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

communistcrimes.org

Is communistcrimes.org which is run by the unitas foundation a suitable external link for Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes It was recently removed and the editor cited "rmv link to propaganda site (per criteria #2 of WP:ELNO))" yet 2 of elno says " except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" As the article is about crimes against humanity under communism and so is the EL I do not see any issue with it? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Crimminy. The article title itself seem to be massive bait for POV-pushing and a set up to try to justify use of a rather poor source. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was called Communist crimes against humanity but was moved to the current title without discussion and a RM to move it back failed. Which poor source are you on about? The suggested EL is not used as a source in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually, when we're talking about "articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting", we're talking about religion or pseudoscience, not history. This article isn't really aout "UNITAS's viewpoint on crimes against humanity". (I have no particular view on whether it is "misleading" or "factually inaccurate".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ephesus External Link

Hi, I added an external link to the [Ephesus[8] page, which was to Historvius.com. The link was intended to help people find practical information on Epheses and was a link to this page. Another Wiki user felt it may be in contravention of the guidelines about links to sites with user-generated content: items 10, 11 and 12 [[9]]. I work for Historvius and the site, although one which accepts user contributions, is professionally edited and checked for accuracy. I asked for further guidance from the user [|Old Moonraker[10]] and they suggested I come here to seek further clarification. However, I do not want to break any rules so am happy to get the guidance of this forum. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.20.61 (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the light of the above, may I add WP:COI? To assist: the diff is here—the link above didn't work for me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the link. Practical information is a Good Thing™, but it's not a Wikipedia Thing™. We're usually looking for encyclopedia-style information for external links rather than advice for tourists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy

There's a link to watch the film that is likely a violation of WP:ELNEVER but it's at http://www.occultconspiracy.com/ so I'm not sure if that is the 'official' site or a fansite. -- œ ^™ 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For possible copyright violations we need pretty objective proof that something is not a violation to keep it. The documentary is by Discovery, the website's domain name has private registration so it cannot be checked. Typically genuine organizations have traceable whois records. This looks like someone profiting by showing ads to see a ripped off film. The site appears to e affiliated with http://www.fringemedia.org/ which uses a legally laughable fair use claim for stealing videos. DreamGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with DreamGuy: remove now, and edit warring should be followed by WP:BLACKLISTing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alison Redford

Is my interpretation of the external links guideline correct, in that news interviews should not be listed in an external links section of a bio, as seen at Alison Redford#Videos? The discussion on the talk page has only been between myself and the user who would like to include the links, except for one IP (who I believe is a sockpuppet of the user trying to appear as several people), no one else has entered the conversation, helping out either side. 117Avenue (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Interviews are listed as a permissible item at WP:ELYES #3. Videos are listed as something to worry about at WP:ELMAYBE #2.

The guideline seems to have lost its advice against subdividing the EL section with level 3 headers like ===Videos===.

The IP traces to cbc.ca, one of the two videos being disputed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

External links problem in Catherine Corman article

I created this article, and there is a note saying that the external links may be inappropriate. I went over the guidelines and I can't figure out what is wrong with them.

How do I get that message removed, either by meeting its demands or by deleting it if the demands are not valid (the links "may" be inappropriate)?

Thanks,

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by New york art editor (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The two press articles don't add any value. See WP:ELNO and look at the first of the criteria. These press articles might make reasonable references to suitable content in the article, but in the context of the external links section they simply don't belong. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook page as official website

On Philippine National Railways, Utnog La (talk · contribs) claims that the railway corporation is using facebook for their official updates and that their actual website is broken down. Question is can facebook be used? This user is constantly reverting removal of the facebook link saying it is a valid one. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain. This [11] used to be the official website of PNR. It's been off-line for months now, they are using this facebook page for their official information. It's a valid link for our readers, as official notices like the complete, and up-to-date time tables are published there. I'd like to point out that the first line of WP:ELNO reads "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:". This is (currently) the official page, something I made clear from starters. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe I understand why Abhishek fails to understand. It is somewhat strange that a national railway corporation is using facebook as their primary means of informing the public, but please read about this subject first. PNR is just providing services on a very small scale, (mostly) with donated equipment. It's just very different there, if one would compare PNR with the Indian railways (or the situation here in W-Europe). Utnog La (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek, are you mostly concerned that it's a Facebook page, or are you mostly concerned that it might be a hoax? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that it is a facebook page. Can a facebook page be linked as the official website of an organisation? — Abhishek ^Talk 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO clearly states that for a link to an official page of the article's subject an exception should be made to the rule of thumb of not linking to pages like FB, this is the first thing mentioned by this rule. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

The official homepage of a subject is a site we always (should) link, whatever the nature or sort of site (we even do whitelisting so a homepage can be listed for notable sites - this happens for porn sites e.g.). Generally, the official site takes the form of a .com or .org, but not always (this seems such a case). In that case, the facebook/myspace/youtube-channel or other is listed as the official site (in rare cases, we would even list a facebook as the more important website if a .com is a useless placeholder). Then the other sites need to be evaluated in what they add over the official site (generally, those are the facebooks/myspaces/youtube channels/twitters, and they in most cases fail, and in rare cases, maybe like here, the official-looking .com or .org would not be listed as far inferior to the official facebook).

Do take care with facebook that there are imposter-sites on it. They look official, but they are not (but that is probably not the case here), and some fans are better in keeping an informative fanpage about a subject than the subject itself is with their own page - still the inofficial sites there fail WP:EL.

Here one would have to make a guess, whether the owners intend to use the facebook as their official site, or whether they want to resurrect the really official site again, maybe the .gov.ph should be listed as second 'official' site, but mentioned as 'mainly defunct' or something along those words?

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It explains it quite well, thanks for the detailed answer. Your suggestion of using the .gov.ph as a second official site seems reasonable; the railway administration might have it reopened again in the future, web.archive tells us that it has been their site for years. Utnog La (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Site containing malware as a source

Main: Talk:K-Multimedia Player#Unsafe link

Hello,

The link to http://www.delmadang.com/ as a source for the article K-Multimedia Player may be unsafe. It apparently distributes malware.[12][13] Unfortunately, I cannot find another website to replace its information, and it seems to be reliable as a primary source (although the way it is cited involves some OR). What should be done?

Thanks in advance. InverseHypercube 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All linked sites that appear to have a malware concern (even if you're not 100% sure) should be sent for review by the WP:BLACKLISTing folks, just to be on the safe side. Please follow the simple instructions there.

In the meantime, you should do your best to fix the OR problems, and then you may choose whether it would be helpful to "break" the URL. There's no rule that says information sourced to a website must be supported by a clickable link in the citation. You might choose, for example, to list the website as "www.example.com/page.html" (without the "http://" part that makes the MediaWiki software treat it as a link rather than as plain text). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see, however, how it would help to send it to the spam blacklist, since there is no spam involving this website. My question is whether it is acceptable to have it as a reference even though it appears to host malicious software. I guess breaking the link is a solution, but the fact remains that the link is there for anyone who might want to verify its contents. InverseHypercube 00:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Malware is under "should generally avoid" at WP:ELNO, but practice is much harsher than that: if there is any credible reason to believe that malware may be distributed by a site, all links to that site must be removed immediately. While reporting for blacklisting is mentioned in the guideline, I think the intention is that malware sites be blacklisted only if someone is repeatedly adding them (quite a few sites get malware which is eventually cleaned off, and the site is removed while doubt exists and restored as a link here later). There was some article (can't think of it now) where the official site was distributing malware and there was some argument about whether to remove the link. I think in that case the link was kept as non-clickable plain text, with an adjacent warning about its recent malware status. However, an external link or reference which may contain malware is just removed (replace with {{cn}} if necessary), using an edit summary that indicates site is being removed until malware problem is known to have been fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Meta apparently maintains a blacklist of malware sites that cannot be linked on any WMF site, even if no one has ever tried. I believe they subscribe to some lists, so they can deal with the transient nature of some malware infections. Flagging a site to the blacklist proposals has the important advantage of getting it in front of technically competent people, regardless of what decision they ultimately make.

John, I remember the case you were thinking about; it was the official link for some minor politician. The key issue there was whether the site actually still had the malware. Some searchers said yes, and others said no. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)