Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Please see the discussion here and help establish consensus. Jayen466 13:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer... such links explicitly violate multiple Wikipedia policies quite dramatically. Consensus has already been set by the virtue of the fact that providing such links violate international laws. DreamGuy (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

play online

Following a request at WP:EAR, I commented in this discussion, revolving around external links to online games. Imho, such links are normally to be avoided because they do not add any substance to the article. However, the guideline doesn't specifically mention them, so I thought I'd ask for some more input (here, or there, as you like). Dorftrottel (canvass) 10:59, March 24, 2008

It would be nice to have some text on this because as the solitaire discusion shows, even though the guideline has plenty that suggests that having multiple of these links is not appropriate, there is no clear statement. Arguments were made that, first, since you obviously can't "play online" via a wikipedia article the play online sites add "extra detail" that could never be a featured article, and second, that having SEVERAL of these links (leading to the same type of game but with different backgrounds and rule variations) is fine if having one is fine. My view is if an offical site doesn't offer the ability to play online, then we should not link to any such sites, although if there was a Dmoz category with several of similar/redundant sites then a directory link would be fine. 2005 (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Another option which only just occured to me would be to include links to selected sites (ideally ones without java/flash) as "primary sources" of sorts. I'm just not very fond of the idea of having EL sections hosting "convenience links", because that runs counter to the entire notion of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. And before anyone tries to lawyer their way through this: Yes, it says their "not mere collections of links" — which some, especially those who regularly lobby to water down all content restrictions, might argue does allow for such links in a developed article. But I believe we need to look at possible conflicts of interest between how people are using Wikipedia and what we are actually trying to accomplish here. (note: no, it's not the kind of COI WP:COI idiotically or ideologically focuses on(much like NPOV addresses mainly a specific subset of non-neutrality)) I kinda like the idea of at least making the reader actually read the text body (you know, "education" and "knowledge" and stuff) rather than catering to the interest of people who are, in effect, abusing Wikipedia for purposes other than the intended ones. That is, unless there is consensus that such links do indeed qualify as worthwhile information in and of themselves and thus should be included. Dorftrottel (criticise) 12:58, March 24, 2008
I agree that such links should normally be avoided, and it might be worthwhile to include language to that effect in the external links guidelines. Rray (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree. Online game play does "provide a unique experience beyond what an encyclopedia would offer." This is a standard for allowing an external link. Not for banning it. As long as the online game does not have a required log-in, specific download, excessive advertising, copyright or other restrictions, there is no reason to exclude it. External links are not required to be encyclopedic in their nature or content. Bytebear (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: None of the games in question are Java based. They are JavaScript, a de-facto standard in web browsers, requiring no special downloads or installation. Bytebear (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd just be very leery of exploitation. If, for example, some college kid had a free Javascript implementation of Spider Solitaire on his website, and he wasn't advertising anything or pushing any sort of political agenda or anything, sure, I could see that being valid for the reasons that Bytebear provided.
On the other hand, if there is even a chance the person is using Wikipedia to increase click-throughs for revenue purposes, I say better-safe-than-sorry. I mean, after all, are we really offering anything that a user could not get by just Googling for the name of the article? So if we err on the side of caution and don't include the link, not much is lost. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that caution should be given. None of the links in question have any ads at all, and those links added that have ads have been removed immediately. The list of three links has been very stable over the last two years. I look at these sites in a similar view as I do IMDB, or similar. More caution is certainly given than for IMDB which does have log-in and ads. Bytebear (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
One need only review the edit history of some of the solitaire articles to see that this list of links has not remained stable. One of the links was added by a user whose only purpose here seems to be to promote his website. A link to a site which lists multiple places to play (DMOZ) makes more sense than picking and choosing which "free to play" sites the Wikipedia is going to promote by sending traffic to. That's also the recommendation in the guidelines.
Also, once we start adding links to "free-play" game websites, where do we stop? Do we add a link to PokerStars.net in the poker article? They offer free poker games. What about a link to GoldenPalace.net in the blackjack article? They offer free blackjack games. Do we add links to every site online where you can play chess for free in the chess article? And in the Go article? This needs to be considered in the context of the entire encyclopedia. I question why anyone would be this insistent to promote a particular list of external links so insistently. In this particular case, no consensus to include these links has been reached, but ByteBear re-added the links, in spite of the guideline that a link to someplace like DMOZ should be used until consensus is reached. Rray (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I reinstituted the links so that those who are unfamiliar with them could use them. GoldenPalace.net and pokerstars are both comercial endeavor trying to get the user to sign up for their services. The spider links are not. There is no incentive other than to play the game. There are not dozens of games, and the "slipery slope" argument simply is not valid, as it has never occured. If you want to talk "slipery slope" then I would again use IMDB as an example of an external site that does have advertising, and an agenda beyond just movie information. These sites are far less intrusive than that site. Bytebear (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you were only interested in making sure that interested users could see the links in question, you could have added them to the talk page. Re-adding them to the article without consensus is just edit-warring. And, no, there are not dozens of games. The Wikipedia literally has articles on hundreds of games, many of which get spammed on a regular basis with links to "free play" sites. The IMDB comparison is completely bizarre, since it seems so far off-topic as to not even warrant mention. You can't play games there, and IMDB links aren't being added to games articles. I fail to see even a remote connection. Rray (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And removing them without concensus is equally unacceptable. These links are not spam. There is no advertising so how could they be. Certainly hundreds of articles have been "spammed" by IMDB, but Wikipedia is ok with that site. A game like Monopoly has a copyright, so any free implimentation would either be a violation of copyright, or a demo or other comercial endeavor. That is not the case with these sites. You keep using examples that do not apply to the sites or the games. Bytebear (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of those specific links should be on that talk page, but it is quite obvious there is no consensus to have them as EVERYONE except you has said they are inappropriate. It does not require a consensus to remove links that were COI spammed, and that have more opposition than support. It requires a consensus to have an external link. Plainly they should not be there now since the large majority of people commenting believe they should not be there. If you want to start a different thread here on "no links can be removed if one editor wants them", go ahead. 2005 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It does not require consensus to add them either. There has been no voilation of the rulse set out here, and you are in fact trying to change the rules to exclude these links. That is very telling. Just because those who have been wanting the links on the spider page are not vocal here, does not mean they don't exist. So far, I have seen two people who have fought to censor wikipedia on this issue, and a third that was dragged in (a form of sockpuppeting) to strenghten your numbers. Don't you dare inflate your position with such obvious forms of hyperbole. Bytebear (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As someone who attempted to clean up the Spider links (and finally gave up in disgust), I also strongly feel that the guideline needs to be updated to firmly note that free "go play" links are not appropriate for game articles. The links tend to violate NPOV as they are almost always going to be one of the main editors of the articles preferred versions. They also give undue weight to the online versions of the game, ignoring software versions, and just playing with a deck of cards on your living room floor. Links to multiple versions of the game is not necessary at all to understand how to play. If this were a pure online game of a single version, such as Neopets, then a single official link would be acceptable. These, however, are not official links as there is no official version. A DMOZ link gives readers links off if they want to go find versions to play, without stacking the deck (pun not intended) for any particularly version. A lack of advertising doesn't make the continual addition of personal versions no better than link spam. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The links do not voilate NPOV, as long as several versions are made available. No preference is given to one version over another. In fact, this is an argument for having multiple versions. Originally, editors got upset because there was a conflict of interest between an editor and a particular site. But, that only applied to that one site. Now they are saying all sites are bad. I say, all sites that are found to have no sign-ins, no advertising, no agenda for further commercial endeavors, no plug-ins, no copyright violations, etc. should be allowed. These links fulfill each of those criteria. Now you are saying they are competing with a simple deck of cards? Give me a break. You are really grasping there. As to DMOZ, the current WP:EL says specifically, that it should be used when a long list is duplicated and DMOZ is simply a mirror of that list. The current list of links is neither long, nor duplicated in DMOZ, so that argument is void. Bytebear (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The default is to not include external links unless they are of encyclopedic value. External links need some rationale to justify their inclusion. What is the encyclopedic value provided by those links that could not be conveyed through words? Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:04, March 25, 2008
Also not that including multiple links is a WP:NOT#DIR problem. Balancing between WP:NPOV/WP:COI vs. WP:NOT#DIR is very tricky in cases like this. Which leads me to reiterate that, for anything that isn't an official site, as long as the user can easily find it in Google, maybe we should err on the side of caution.. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite simply, an online implememtation of a copyright free game fulfills the following: "Any site that [provides] a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Bytebear (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Resource" of course means "information resource". There is no information in online games which couldn't more appropriately be included in the form of text. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:28, March 25, 2008
You don't think having a functional model of the game isn't informative? Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire. I do think that having a "functional model" (it's still just an online game link is an online game link is an online game link) isn't informative beyond what text can easily achieve. We should avoid sending readers off-site if possible. Dorftrottel (harass) 19:06, March 25, 2008
I do think providing access to a free, no login required, non-spammed, no excessive advertising version of an online game can be useful for readers. I don't think there is general community support to entirely ban external links to examples. But I've seen how these articles become link repositories and the above edit warring is exactly the sort of thing editors should never be doing. I believe this is the sort of situation that our EL guideline about directories (Links to be considered #3)) is intended for. If editors on an article cannot agree on a single appropriate link to an example then a link to a directory should be used instead. If editors can agree on the external link section content (on the article's talk page) such agreement over-rules these guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no edit warring above, only discussion. Dorftrottel (warn) 15:37, March 27, 2008
I believe SiobhanHansa is refering to the endless spamming and reversions on the article in question over the past two years. 2005 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The "endless spamming" consists of exactly 3 links. Hardly overwhealming. Bytebear (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No it includes several other websites, including links you removed yourself! The edit is history is there for everyone to see. 2005 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If I included other sites other than the games in question (WorldofSolitaire, GreenFelt, and another that I can't remember) then it was inavdertant. But we aren't talking about those links. We are talking about the game implementations, and my point still stands. They fall under the same criteria as YouTube and other media. As long as they don't violate other standards of WPL:EL, then they are acceptable. And judging from the discussion on the Spider talk page, apparently several other game related articles have links to external iplementations. Bytebear (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We absolutely do not link to sites that exist only to play games. That's not encyclopedic in the slightest, and it's also spam bait. There also is no fair way to list one site to play and turn down others. They all have to be banned as dcompletely at odds with the goals of an encyclopedia. Links to pages explaining how games work, showing step by step examples, etc. are another thing entirely. DreamGuy (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do. What do you expect to find at the end of PopCap Games, if not a link to their website? I'll bet there are dozens of examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to sites where one can play the game are to be found on MANY, MANY Wiki pages: Pac-Man, Canasta, Minesweeper, Reversi, etc. In fact the Chess page was recently "protected" to keep folks from deleting the links to play the game! This matter seems SO obvious to me: the links are entirely appropriate and should be left alone. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Chess was protected for other vandalism a month ago, nothing about links; I can so no 'online play' links that are similar to the ones here. I just happen to hit the one at pac-man earlier today; clearly inappropriate. Will look at the others. Kuru talk 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I work for TV Guide, and - as per guidelines - I requested adding a TV Guide link within the Smallville discussion page.

Another user denied the request, saying that "we generally don't list "sources" in the External Links section when we already have them linked in the "References" section." (TVG Smallville Link Request).

Is this true? Are sites listed as sources and sites listed in external links mutually exclusive? If this is true, what's the rationale?

--Tubesurfer (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for asking instead of just adding it. :) And yes, he is correct. The external links section are intended primarily for official sites and sites with additional information that can not be used as references. They should be kept to a minimal and avoid redundancy with links used in the references. The only exception tends to be official site links, pages of which may be used as references, while the main link is in EL. Since TV Guide is already being used as a reference in the article, with a link, an additional link is unnecessary. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Not to push the case too far, but the link referenced is going to a TV Guide Smallville Episode List, while the link I'm proposing would go to the TV Guide Smallville landing page, which would contain material that couldn't be referenced, such as Video, Photos, as well as exclusive news, etc. This avoids redundancy at the link level, while also providing an important and authoritative additional Smallville reference to users. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesurfer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple links to the same website are probably not appropriate either. Wikipedia isn't really the appropriate place for TV Guide to promote their website. Rray (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple links Such as this current example (51 links to ipdb.org) are not appropriate either--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that in many articles with infoboxes (example: Worcester County, Maryland), the official link in the infobox is repeated in the External links section at the bottom of the article. Are these multiple links necessary, or good style? (I've also noticed that lots of articles about places have 2 or 3 links to coordinates for the place, also repetitively redundant.) Pilch62 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I posted a notice about this question on the talk page for WP:CITY, as that project would likely be involved with this issue as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
They're as useful as listing the population in the infobox, the place name in the infobox, and lots more. That's what an infobox is for. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I should've been clearer: I agree that the link should be in the infobox, but think that it's redundant to then list it again in the External links section. Pilch62 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates are the information, not the external mapping services (for example, clicking on the globe symbol also allows viewing a map without chasing an external link). The coordinates should be in places such as "Geography" rather than being in External Links due to the technical needs of mapping services. The External Links entries are actually fossils of older mapping service technology which had to list several links to mapping services within the article, rather than only having the coordinates visible to readers. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
External links should not be infoboxes. They should be in an external links section... that why we have a section for external links. Different wikiprojects have established different procedures for infoboxes, some of which are way beyond illogical, and do nothing but pimp commercial sites. One repetitive link for an official site isn't the end of the world, but that sloppy practice leads down a slippery slope where some infoboxes pimp certain review sites in every type of article. This guideline should state explicitly that all external links should only be in the external links section. It's logical, easy to understand, and prevents commercial abuse and favoritism. 2005 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with User:2005, but it's important here to distinguish between the two uses of external links in infoboxes. One is routine use of external links to major information sources: {{Infobox Disease}} includes several external links, and they are generally considered useful and relevant by readers and editors. The ICD-10 codes and MeshIDs, for example, are remarkably useful for making sure that you're in the right article, especially for diseases that change names every time you change countries. These external links tend to lead to websites like the World Health Organization and several major databases run by the US NIH, so they can't be easily attacked as either "commercial abuse" or "favoritism".
The other use is when an editor puts in a link to an organization's website. See {{Infobox company}} for that kind of use. However, even in purely commercial articles, such as The Coca-Cola Company, I see no harm in including a link to the company's website in the infobox. It may be redundant (in which case, you can delete it from the external links section [or the entire external links section, in many cases], particularly in very short articles), but it's essentially harmless.
I do think that template editors have a duty to make sure that they are not abusing the infobox by using it to promote a particular website through dozens (or thousands) of articles, but to issue a sweeping ban on all external links in all infoboxes is much, much too strong an action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There are degrees here. Linking to the World health organization from an infobox is uneeded, but not a terrible thing. Linking to the IMDb and All Movie Guide from every movie infobox is ridiculous. The easiest solution is also the most commonsensical: no external links infoboxes. Then every article will have all external links in the same place where everyone will know where to find them. It's far more user friendly than scattering them around. 2005 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what ICD-10 codes are? That's what we're linking to at WHO in the disease infobox. It's fairly high up on my list of important links. I (and I suspect that everyone at WikiProject Medicine also) strongly disagree with your characterization of this link as "unneeded." I can't imagine why a link to OMIM would be "unneeded" for genetic diseases. There are, in fact, no good reasons for a total ban on useful information in infoboxes. Honestly, I'd rather ban the entire external links section than have to move organized, uniform, and reliable infobox links in some ten thousand medicine-related articles into the chaos of EL.
Besides, what's so friendly about putting information (like an OMIM code) in an infobox, and then making the reader scroll to the end of the article and search through a dozen external links to find the one they want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stay on the discussion at hand. No one suggested removing valuable links, only putting useful "external links" in the "external links" section. If you have a gripe about the external links esction, start another thread on that, and also take it up at the Manual of Style guideline. 2005 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
User:2005: the use of IMDB and Allmovie in the film infobox would be better discussed at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films or Template talk:Infobox Film (or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)), after reading all the past discussions. I agree that linking to Allmovie is unnecessary, but there is wide support for linking to IMDB. See also Template:Infobox Album and various others, for related arguments discussion and precedent. Which specific external links belong in an infobox, is unrelated to this thread's topic. Please stay on the discussion at hand (duplication), or create a new thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Your personal preferences aside, Wikipedia:EL#Important_points_to_remember the external links guideline specifically allows the inclusion of external links in infoboxes: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Query: how serious is wikipedia about enforcing that "or", i.e., link either in infobox or in external links, but not both, or should that policy be rewritten to say:

"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox."

I ask since my original question was about repetitive links within one article, and the current policy seems to suggest that having it more than once isn't the preferred solution. Pilch62 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a guideline, and it's not strictly enforced. You can apply "editor's judgment" -- which is to say, whatever the editors agree is appropriate for that article is fine for that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is a guideline and should be followed in all articles, except under extraordinary circumstaces. "whatever the editors agree is appropriate for that article is fine for that article" is not one of those reasons. Just because three editors agree they want to spam 1000 links on an article does not make it okay. 2005 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It could be clarified, but "or" does strongly suggests that duplication should be avoided. 2005 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It makes more sense to have it in the infobox and in the bottom, since (1) the infobox is a summary of information duplicated from the rest of the article, and therefore is the natural place to look to get a little summary of the article, and (2) the bottom is where we look to get our external links if that's what we're primarily concerned about. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be unclear on the topic. When you say "Infoboxes are generally meant to summarize, and hence repeat, the most important information from an article", that is the issue we have been trying to discuss. Saying that is what infoboxes are for doesn't help anything. The original post questions the whether such duplication is necessary or good style for external links. Just asserting duplication is what they are for doesn't address the topic. 2005 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If the links are important, they can be duplicated. Infoboxes are 90% duplicated matter.
The reason that purposeful ambiguity is often included in the wording of guidelines, is to allow for intelligent interpretation, and to avoid instruction creep.
Current practices, with external links existing in many infoboxes, and hardly anyone discussing their complete removal, suggests that most editors (and probably users) like them. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread (and see my reply further up this thread).
(Please try not to lead your replies with demeaning comments, such as "You seem to be unclear on the topic", or "Nonsense", or "Please stay on the discussion at hand" (when you yourself keep trying to change this topic). It's very adversarial, and creates a hostile atmosphere.) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll ignore any more of the strange accusations. I didn't change anything. Please read what the thread is about. Just saying WP:ILIKEIT does not address the original posters questions. WHY do you want duplicates? WHY is it good style? WHY do you think it is nessessary? We'll all know it is done as a current paractice, and it can be done now, so you don't need to keep repeating that. Once again, if you want to start a thread on something different than the original poster's questions, go ahead. 2005 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not absolutely necessary, but as the point of an infobox is to summarise information, it's quite useful. Infoboxes themselves aren't absolutely necessary (see Lisco, Nebraska), but they're helpful. It's good style to repeat information in a careful way, so as to make the information more accessible without making it overwhelming or annoying. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Same thing happens with the introduction to a long article. There's a long and widely supported history of repeating information in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hijacked and re-registered sites"

This section seems pretty self-evident and hence unneeded. It would be like telling your store clerk "Right now a few streets over from here a man is being mugged, so you shouldn't expect to sell him anything today." I mean, seriously - did whomever add this actually believed a wiki editor would stumbled across a hijacked or re-registered link and leave it in place???? Unless I'm missing something, because otherwise this just seems unneccessary. SteveCoppock (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be confused, but I thought there was a guideline that suggested that we should prefer internal links to external links for related topics. Specifically, think about an article about a topic for which there are many examples each with official web sites, such as Pro-life or Mobile phone. I thought it was a principle that, for instance, on Mobile phone we don't have links to the official websites of individual providers but instead link to the Wikipedia articles about them. I thought this was part of the guideline here but I don't see wording that supports it. Mangojuicetalk 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to Chamber of Commerce sites exist in many of our city and town articles. Chambers of Commerce exist primarily to promote trade in their area; as such, they appear to me to be poor sources for neutral info-- they have a decided bias. They tend toward boosterism, and in general, where they have useful info, it is stuff that should/could be added to the article directly.

The same and more can be said of official tourism links: see http://www.orlandoinfo.com/ from our Orlando, Florida page. This is straight advertising.

Comments? -- Mwanner | Talk 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

External links do not have to present a neutral point of view. Yes, they're biased. No, that doesn't mean you can delete them on the grounds of NPOV rules. NPOV rules only apply to the article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Aren't you overlooking "What should be linked 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article".
And "Links normally to be avoided 5. [...] sites with objectionable amounts of advertising"?
--Mwanner | Talk 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not overlooking anything here. WP:EL sets up three categories of external links. You can think of them as Yes, Maybe, and No. Chamber of Commerce links and official government-sponsored websites usually fall into the "Maybe" category, under 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I do not say that they must be included; I merely say that they are permitted under current guidelines.
The "objectionable amounts of advertising" clause does not apply, because it's meant to reject links that have huge numbers of Google AdSense advertisements, not (for example) Apple.com, even though the entire Apple.com website can be construed as an advertisement for Macs and iPods. BTW, items 4, 5, and 6 in the current list were originally one sentence (back in 2006), and if you read them together, you may get a better sense of their purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll buy that vis a vis the C of C sites. Now, what about http://www.orlandoinfo.com ? It is, so far as I can see, pure advertising. Remembering that Wikipedia is not a directory, under what head (if any) do we keep such a link? -- Mwanner | Talk 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How is it any different from the C of C? The Orlando CVB is a non-profit organization (same as C of C) with a mission of promoting its industry (tourism). Except for the fact that visitors bureaus are funded by taxpayers (most commonly hotel room taxes, but I don't know about this particular outfit), it's just the "C of C for tourism".
Now if you dislike it (and personally, I do), you could always try to build consensus on the talk page to remove it. You just won't be able to cite the standard rules as requiring its removal. There is, after all, no rule that requires the inclusion of a link merely because it is permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is different because the amount of advertising is over the top, and the amount of solid information is even less than on the average C of C site.
On what do you base your assertion that "The 'objectionable amounts of advertising' [...is] meant to reject links that have huge numbers of Google AdSense advertisements..." If that's all it means, that's what it should say.
I admit that I have a visceral reaction to anything that feels like advertising. Jimmy Wales famously said that "Wikipedia makes the web not suck", and to me, that is precisely because it is free of advertising, and the door should stay firmly closed. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought - if you want additional input from those who work with these types of links on a regular basis, you may want to mention this discussion on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Recognized authority?

Hey. I was wondering if someone could clarify what the term "recognized authority" means (WP:LINKSTOAVOID, #11). I took it to mean a scholar who has published papers on the topic in publications, a government figure who speaks on a subject, and so on. Is there a more clarified definition anywhere? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely does not mean scholar. Someone like Tony Hawk would be a recognized authority on competitive skateboarding, but you'd hardly call anybody like that a "scholar". A recognized authority is pretty simple in most areas, with WP:N leading the way. Someone is a recognizd authority if there are independent sources suggesting that. Physics may have a higher bar than skateboarding, but that's just splitting hairs. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that User:2005 didn't mean to actually exclude scholars, but s/he's absolutely right about the broad meaning here. One possible rule of thumb is that a person who is quoted in a newspaper article (or something similar) in some sort of expert-opinion capacity can be assumed to be a recognized authority for that subject. A person who merely has an interest in the subject, or a personal website on the subject, probably doesn't meet this threshold. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, a recognized authority's knowledge would have little problems passing WP:V policies and WP:RS content guideline. However, one must be careful with WP:COI behavioral guidelines when inserting external links. Jrod2 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, that helps quite a bit. Thanks, all. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Since this section was probably created to mediate the EL conflict at Talk:North Korea can you take some time to give your opinion on this precise case? Thanks. Mthibault (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I need an example

I'd like to see an example of how to apply the WP:EL guideline. There are several people out there who run web sites which have a lot of interesting information about polymer clay; these sites include tutorials, forums, detailed history, online stores, and a lot more. All of these people are very eager to have their sites added to the External Links section of Polymer clay for free advertising. When faced with a lot of sites with a lot of information, how does one choose which sites to include and which to omit, especially when the people who run the omitted sites will come back and demand justification? Include all of the links, and Wikipedia turns into a web directory. I'd rather get rid of all these links, but then I know people will point to WP:EL and say that linking to a few of these sites is okay. What's the best way you've found to handle a situation like this? - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The sublisting at WP:ELNO outlines which links to omit. And the information under WP:EL#Links to be considered suggests using {{dmoz}} when "editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached." Here's a dmoz link that could work:
*{{tlp|dmoz|Arts/Crafts/Modeling_Compounds/Polymer_Clay/|Polymer clay}}
which displays as:
  • {{dmoz|Arts/Crafts/Modeling_Compounds/Polymer_Clay/|Polymer clay}}
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
External links are meant to define beyond the article's own definitions and nothing more. One can use an external link when the topic is covered significantly better than the article itself and despite the existence of advertisement or blogs. Linking directly to a blog, however, it's not acceptable. External links should also be used in a minimum manner not excessively. If too many external links are found, they should be deleted, so only the best remain (clean up). The best way to introduce links are as footnotes or references for needed citations. Jrod2 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the criteria to select a site is WP:V and WP:RS. Jrod2 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW: When addressing external links, there's also some overlap with WP:NOT. Commonly related subsections from that policy are WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
External links are meant to define beyond the article's own definitions and nothing more. Actually, not the "article's own defitions", rather, what the article would include it it were a comprehensive, featured article. See the wording under Links to avoid: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How, though, do you effectively defend your deletions against a person who insists that his site has not only forums and advertising and a shop, but also plenty of additional useful information that is "accurate and on topic" and therefore specifically allowed by WP:EL? - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends how strongly you feel about it. If the link in question is very obviously spam, you don't need to defend yourself; just keep reverting the change and issuing spam warnings, and if they don't stop, report them to WP:AIV. If you are pretty sure the link is inappropriate, but not confident enough to risk getting blocked for WP:3RR, then start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to get other editor(s) involved to reach a consensus. If consensus is reached that the link is inappropriate, then go back to option 1, i.e. if the person does not abide by the consensus, issue warnings, eventually leading to a WP:AIV report.
If multiple IPs are adding a link where there is consensus not to include it, as a last resort you can have the website in question placed on the spam blacklist. I've only had to do this once, but occasionally you do get someone who is so persistent that they will just keep logging in from different IPs to re-add their spam. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The DMOZ option is often a good one. Additionally, the non-website-owners that edit the page might want to first decide how many links you're going to include (total number for all links). (That number should certainly be no more than a dozen, BTW.) This may solve your problem: if you pick four or six, and you've already got for or six or however many non-shopping links, then you're done.
Even if there's "room" in the article, you may decide not to include any of the shops, for the sake of "fairness". (This would be my vote.) External links are permitted, not required. If you choose to include a few, then you start by ditching anything that's even slightly deprecated by the guidelines: registration required, looks weird unless you're using a Windoze computer, multiple pages on the same website, that kind of thing.
From there, you try to pick them by content, and you specifically direct the links to the pages with the best content-to-commercial ratio. So if someone has a particularly good page on, say, metallic clay, and you think that might interest readers, then you link to that page instead of the website in general.
If website owners particularly want to be included, they can always create pages that have no advertising and no products for sale and really, really good content on a particular subtopic. If they don't want to do that -- well, they make the rules for their website, and we make the rules for ours. Our rules say that we don't have to include any external links at all, especially if we think the inclusion of those links will tend to promote sales instead of knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a belief that sites should not be linked from Wikipedia if they're commercial. I don't see anything about that in WP:EL - it discourages links whose sole purpose is advertising, but it doesn't say that commercial sites are inherently less worthy of being linked than other sites. Or am I missing something? - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas. I like the option of getting rid of external links and linking to dmoz instead if there's any disagreement over the links; I think I'll use that approach in the future. Me, I really don't want to have any External Links in the majority of cases, because they turn Wikipedia into a web directory (and my pet peeve are those promotional dmoz-style blurbs after each External Link!), but I always end up getting into a debate with someone who says that all the other links can go but his should stay because it's useful and WP:EL allows it. People so often seem to interpret WP:EL as saying the opposite of what it really means - I really wish that WP:EL were more firm on the point that an external link should not be added unless it specifically supplements the article, and that sites should not be linked merely because they cover the same topic. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One other EL rule that comes into play is Conflict of Interest: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." These folk shouldn't be adding links to their own sites anyway. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is not policy, just guidelines. One shouldn't be adding adding a link to one's website unless, the article page is, for example, your own biography. You are allowed then to make edits and insert external links as long as they are used as citations and footnotes and as along as you don't violate WP:NPV. But, if someone claims authority on a subject and wants to insert external links to his/her website, just delete them and if you suspect there is more on the article, just use a Cleanup-spam tag. If you get involved in an edit war, however, you may just want to stop and ask for an WP:RfC. If other users agree, the issue is settled. Jrod2 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Patient survivor stories: proposed expansion

Item #11 in "Links to avoid" is about "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I'd like to expand that item to specifically name a subtype of personal web page: collections of patient survival stories. They are not published by organizations with a reputation for fact checking; in fact, they're usually published by small charities or individual patients. It amounts to a one-page/one-time personal blog, even though it's not hosted by a blogging service. Typical collections can be found here and here.

These kinds of links turn up in many of the less-watchlisted medical articles. They are routinely excised when discovered, but they tend to re-appear. I'd like to specifically name them in this item, essentially as an example of a blog or personal web page. Specifically, I propose that this item be expanded to read:

  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, including personal experiences such as patient survivor stories, except those written by a recognized authority

Does this seem like a reasonable expansion? Is there a better way to phrase this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Some editors at Talk:Delayed sleep phase syndrome are of the opinion that their favorite e-mail list should be included in the external links under ""What Should be linked", list item 4: 'Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews'" -- despite this link clearly falling under the "no discussion forums or USENET e-mail lists." The expressed purpose for the inclusion is because "peer support" is important for patients.
One editor writes, "[Y]ou are claiming there is a consensus or policy against them when those manual of style pages do not actually support your claim. Thus I am unconvinced that such a policy exists." An e-mail discussion group doesn't directly relate to my proposal here, but I invite people here to consider whether or not further information in these pages would be useful. Perhaps an explanatory footnote would be an appropriate way to include more detailed information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any concerns being raised, I've made this change. Actually, after thinking it over, I turned my comment into a slightly longer footnote. I thought it would disrupt the main text of that section better. Feel free to edit the phrasing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the change. Not because I disagree with you, but because I think it's simply a rather minor point that's not worth mentioning. Patient stories usually appear on personal web pages, so that's already covered anyhow. Additionally, the wording seems a bit broad. "This category includes all webpages that publish unverifiable personal experiences" Isn't a personal experience unverfiable by definition? The new wording also includes any kind of (film/game/music/etc.) review, and I doubt that was your intention. I agree with including e-mail lists, tho, and haven't reverted that part of your edit. --Conti|✉ 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is WP:CREEP. There is no need to call out a very obscure example. The proposed text is is redundant to the existing text. We can link to Neil Armstrong's trip to the moon page because he is an expert. John Smith's geocities page about his trip to Niagra Falls wouldn't be linked. 2005 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing like making a change to get people's attention. Thanks for your comments. No, I have a specific reason for wanting this included: I do external links patrol work for medicine-related articles, and I get complaints about removing support groups and patient survivor stories all the time. See the founder of the world's largest online support groups complain about the exclusion of e-mail lists. See the anons repeatedly insist on advertising their favorite survivor stories. See irritated editors argue whether their e-mail list is really covered by the guidelines. Note that I can provide you more examples if wanted; these are just ones that I've dealt with recently.
YES, I agree that these situations are covered: I'm explaining, not changing, the guidelines. NO, apparently all of Wikipedia's editors aren't sufficiently neutral to be able to figure out that these guidelines really, truly apply to these links. I can, and do, get support from other members of WPMED, but it would be easier for all concerned if the guidelines were unambiguous in this instance -- if there was something that said "Do not link to patient survivor stories" in the same way that we say "Do not link to internet chat rooms".
The problem, BTW, with the patient survivor stories, vis a vis the current phrasing, is that they tend to be collected at websites other than blogspot or blogger. So you say "Hey, it's basically a blog of personal experiences" and the response is "This is not a blog; it's 'meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article,' which means we are required to link it under WP:EL!"
I am absolutely open to wording changes. I am willing to demote this to WP:MEDMOS if it isn't wanted here. But I'd like to have something, somewhere, that is appropriately agreed upon, to save me (and other editors) some time and trouble. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, WP:MEDMOS looks like the better guideline to go into more detail about when and when not to include links to patient stories, IMHO. I can see your problem, but this is just too much of a minor point, and I'm not sure how we could adequately include it in this guideline. Going into more detail about WP:EL at WP:MEDMOS sounds like a good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a complaint in this FAC about JSTOR links in footnotes. Academic articles, which are only available in relatively rare academic journals or on that subscription service, are being cited as sources; an editor wants to remove the convenience links to the on-line versions because not everybody can access them.

Does anyone here agree with him? (I don't, myself.) If so, we should consider rephrasing the passages on pay links to sources.

If it makes any difference, JSTOR is fairly widely available to readers; almost all colleges and many public libraries subscribe to it, and anyone on their system can use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So this editor wants the reference to have no link, just because many readers can't use it? What does he think will happen if it's excluded? Everyone will go to the library to look it up?
Sorry: I disagree. This is a reference. References need complete information. The external links page here is directed at the ==External links== section, which is more like a "recommended reading online" section than "where I found this specific fact" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing is correct; external links are completely different from sources. If there's a link, provide it; while a more publicly-available site is greatly preferred, it's totally understandable in the case of an academic-specific source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One shouldn't settle for a pay site link and in effect, look for other alternatives. If all efforts to find better links fail, then there is no issue. Jrod2 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The actual problem with JSTOR links is people giving only JSTOR and not the actual journal reference. It's absurd not to give the available online version to which everyone connected with hundreds of universities and colleges & an increasing number of public libraries & high schools has access, far more than to the print versions for many of the journals. But the print versions exist. References are not external links, and they go to the official version, with convenience links to the best version more widely available, preferably online, and preferably free. But most of what considers academic discussion still isn't. Yes, we want to work to bringing about much more general [[open access], but in the meantime we have to cope with what there is. DGG (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do obvious one purpose edits count against the credibility of a user anymore?

Are we using either policies or guidelines to stop editors who have an obvious pattern of editing, such as: returning to WP to re-insert his/her external link whenever another user who viewed it as spam, deleted it? If I see an editor who has 10 edits total on his/her contributions and 8 were made to insert an external link, argue for its inclusion on a talk page and the 2 other edits were unrelated (perhaps to fake other interests). Is it not obvious that the user is using Wikipedia to promote his/her external link, especially when he/she never comes back (unless to re-insert said link again)?. I know someone is going to start with WP:AGF. But, are we not at a point where we can get a little tougher with spammers and people whose sole purpose is to exploit Wikipedia? Jrod2 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The priority, is to politely educate the new user, so that they become a helpful editor.
If you have politely informed, or even better, discussed, any problems with the new user, and they still aren't changing poor editing-patterns, it is then that you can start assuming less good-faith, and begin getting tough.
Always take context into account, and make an effort to assume that they don't know all of our intricate policies and guidelines by heart yet.
If the user is only getting warning templates, with no friendly addendums or advice, then they might just be feeling understandably defensive. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation Quiddity. But, when a user comes to WP to post an external link, creates his/her user page stating that he/she is "so and so" and wrote an article on his/her web site that is now "proudly" being used on a Wikipedia article page as an external reference link in order to "expand" on the article's definitions and 3 months have gone by and we still haven't seen him/her again. Is it not obvious that his/her sole purpose was just to exploit Wikipedia? Obviously, several months had to go by to come to this realization. I also know of examples where the user came in to WP just post no citation tags everywhere without even bothering to help find any of them, etc, etc. This isn't that serious as the first example, though. Users actually have done this and have gotten away with it. My point is, why don't we use a 'Time Told' approach because his/her actions indicated that: A) He/She was apparently interested only in adding a link or B) He/She was apparently interested only in disrupting WP articles and their talk pages. If he/she is innocent, as one may actually completely misunderstand the rules at WP, don't you think that it would show just by his/her reactions and future actions? Jrod2 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I was answering in a general way. You seem to have a few specific examples in mind. If you ask about a specific case and point to various sources that we can look at for evidence/background/context, we can answer that with much more detail :)
When I first started editing in 2005, I was just adding {{imdb title}} templates, and external links selected from the various bookmarks that I had accumulated since 1998. I thought that was helpful. Most of the people that I know have never edited Wikipedia, and don't really know how it works, or what its policies and norms of expected behaviour are. They need to be given as much leeway for learning, as newcomers were given in 2006, or 2004, or 2002. Even those people who start off as what appears to be mass-spammers, need to be given a chance to change their ways. It could just be a really eager&efficient 14 year old, or an eager&efficient retiree. ('Zero tolerance' is just another way of saying intolerance). See also, User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, and the other 4 links in the bottom navbox there.
Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If they're only posting one link every three months, then it's not too hard to revert it. If it gets out of hand, then the WP:SPAM folks might be able to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Quiddity you are a nice and very trusting user and up to certain degree, I am too. I always observe civil conduct and AGF. This is got nothing to do with it. Some of us are gifted in knowing other people's intentions. From subtle statements to pretty much their own actions, these things give away people who come to exploit WP. You hope they become contributors? Who are we kidding? Can you come up, best to your knowledge, with one user who engaged in spamming and vandalizing articles who later became a good contributor? WhatamIdoing, In answering to you, what I am referring to is, This user wrote article which was posted on his site (call it site X) and although the article can blog. He argued that the site in itself wasn't a Blog. A WP editor posted this article's link to a WP article that already had plenty of good external links. Me and someone else deleted it. I deleted because I thought it was an unknown site and thus, a WP:EL problem. The other user who deleted thought that it was a Blog site. Both times were reverted. One by the user who posted the external link and the second time, by a new user (He was the author who wrote this article in site X). Anyway, the author who had "just become a new member", created his user page and made a whole bunch of claims of being an authority in his field. However, the subject is by no means an authority and certainly had, in my view, verifiability issues ([1]). Anyway, he got to keep his external link even though, some users thought hard about the wisdom to allow this to happen. Since the author couldn't post the link back himself due to WP:COI issues, the link was reposted by the original poster. And where is this new comer who came in to Wikipedia to spread the knowledge and offer site X? He hasn't been seen since December 8, 2007 which was right after the re-posting of his link. And the poster? 6 edits here and there and last seen in February 2008. They look like they acted in concert to get this done, if you asked me. Jrod2 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you want to post your concerns at WP:SOCK then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User check found them unrelated, that doesn't mean that the link poster couldn't have been a meatpuppet, though.Jrod2 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can point out at least one admin, who started as a vandal. I couldn't quickly find the relevant links, so I asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#Vandals who become good editors, who came up with this: "...Some editors openly identify as reformed vandals. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User Reformed Vandal. And Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darthgriz98 passed with no opposition in spite of really bad vandalism in the first edit." (I only asked 5 hrs ago, so there might be further details soon).
Lots of people make serious mistakes, but, most of them are able to learn from their mistakes (in life, in Wikipedia, etc), if given enough time (seconds to weeks), or approached in the right way.
"Friendly", is just a good catch-all word. I mean it to imply a mix of AGF, politeness, and a non-overbearing/authoritarian/demanding style of communication (rhetoric). Don't be a cop harassing a skateboarder; instead, be an editor trying to help the foolish-young-new-college-intern. (or even, be an editor helping a skateboarder to become an intern, if you're that eloquent and convincing!). People are the most important resource there is, for Wikipedia; not frightening anyone off forever, is the 2nd most important job we have as ideal Wikipedians (after writing an encyclopedia).
[All with exceptions. There are always exceptions. It's just more concise to talk in generalizations, with the assumption that the exceptions are implied.] -- Quiddity (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but can we see the specific example, Jrod?
BTW, in regards to the "zero tolerance" comment, that was taken a little bit out of context... Jrod was referencing a comment I had made, in which I was distinguishing between how we ought to react to a) people who are making errors due to ignorance of the rules of Wikipedia, who ought to be granted a lot of leniency, since it is not unlikely they may one day become productive editors; vs. b) people who are clear vandal-only (e.g. replacing a page with "My classmate Bob eats too many beans" or spammers (see here). I don't think anybody is saying we should tolerate the latter; the issue is telling the difference between the two. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jaysweet , good to see u on this forum. I am going to have to pass on providing the name of the user because he is a CVU member and that may indicate, as per Quiddity, that he may come back "some day" to make constructive edits and contribute to WP. Jrod2 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Generally: See my reply above. Specifically: a) People who makes errors due to ignorance should be given a lot of leniency; b) people who are clear vandals should be given a little leniency - that's why there are 4 levels of warning template, and why we give people chances even after they've been blocked. Forgiveness is near the center of how many world religions?! ;) I wish more editors would read User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles every few months, if they do a lot of vandal-fighting. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Argument ad Jibonum, eh? heh... Forgiveness, sure, I support that. If someone asks to be unblocked, unless they've shown a pattern of abuse, I think we ought to be very forthcoming with the unblock. On the other hand, if someone replaces an entire page with the text, "I LIKE SMELLY POOP," they have sent a very clear message that they don't want to contribute constructively. Why assume the opposite? --Jaysweet (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make clear that the term zero tolerance should only be applied to vandals like this [2]. The user was reported to WP:AIV and what does the admin do? Nothing. I asked him why this user's edit didn't warrant immediate blocking action. His answer was: "I try my hardest to assume good faith, and our blocking policy states that users should not be blocked if they stop vandalizing after a warning" [3]. I told him that was not what I saw and thought the IP user was, in effect, only one person and was making too many disruptions. You know what? The vandal came right back minutes later to resume vandalizing, so again someone reported it and this time he got blocked by another admin. No wonder why vandals are encouraged to continue vandalizing WP. As for your example Quiddity, there is still some gold left from the gold rush era in California (1849). But, I wouldn't waste my time trying to find it. I apologize if I sound so skeptical and resigned. Jrod2 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example where it appears there was an innocent, honest mistake by an anon IP [4]. WP:AGF makes it clear that he can't be punished for it, even though he blanked a page specifically written for Wikipedia policy. I believe the user should be blocked on the spot as soon as he blanks another page. Regardless of AGF & no questions asked. Jrod2 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the 5 short bullet points at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings and notices. Most instances of testing or simple vandalism should be met with templates 1 thru 4, in order. Then you take it to AIV. For the policy, see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education and warnings.
On top of which, the next edit from that IP could be by a completely different person.
Being careful to check your assumptions at the door, is part of AGF.
Editors that spend the majority of their time doing CVU type work, can start to get a really negative attitude, and be in danger of driving other users away. Don't be a bad cop. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Quiddity, your comments are not necessary and certainly do not provide me with any information I didn't know. You, on the other hand, don't understand that anybody can be blocked if it's apparent that your edits are intentionally vandalizing pages. Now, if you read carefully, I did say that we have to asumme good faith , that's what AGF means. That said, only someone with little experience patrolling as you appear to be by your statements above, would actually believe that if said user came back to blank another Wikipedia policy page (Like blanking the entire page on WP:SOCK), he should be given a warning template 2 (LOL). "Blocked on the spot" may also mean blocked for 1 hour and up and not necessarily indef. We block to prevent damage to the project, not to punish anyone. Jrod2 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Guideline should mention the local spam blacklist

I'd like to suggest that the local spam blacklist page (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) be mentioned somewhere in this guideline. I was looking for a way to report a spamlink that one user keeps adding, but the guideline only mentions the Meta blacklist, which (as I found out) is only used against multi-project spammers. I'm not sure where in the guideline it would be most appropriate to mention the blacklist, so I'd like to ask someone else to do it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Dan (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying guideline to prevent template abuse

Three issues here. First, in the lead of this guideline it states external links should normally be in infoboxes or an external links section at the end of the article. We seem to have a solid consensus on that. Second, the guideline says to not link to product pages, or pages with excess advertising. Third, a comment was made on here once by someone that external links should not be used to bypass policy or consensus -- meaning if something doesn't meet WP:N or WP:V to meet an article, then an external link should not go to an article on other domain about the thing to circumvent the decision to not have an article.

Well, this template for indicdual cards for a card game Accumulated Knowledge violates all three principals -- it is an external link used in the bodies of articles, links to a page overwhelmed by advertising, and the content linked to does not merit an article itself. The first two issues are clear enough in this guideline -- no external links in body of article, no excessive advertising or product links -- but the third idea should be more explicit, like: External links should never be used to circumvent Wikipedia policies or guidelines for article creation. If someone wants to draft something more clear, that would be great.

Variations of this template exist on articles quite unrelated to the card game like Merrow and Boggart, as well as overflowing from ones about the game like Magic: The Gathering. A tfd is called for, but in terms of the guideline here I think this calls for some clear language that emphasizes the three points above, and also the cumulative effect, meaning you can't just make an external template to violate the literal text and entire spirit of this guideline. 2005 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be done usefully. It's perfectly fine (under appropriate circumstances) to link to something that isn't notable enough to get its own article but is relevant to some other article. In fact, it's done all the time. I think you need to invoke the "consensus of editors" clause: "permitted" does not mean "mandatory". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actaully it's not perfectly fine. The guideline says as an "important" point to remeber that: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. Exceptions to this should be extremely rare, and as such, it is doubtful that they should EVER be used to link to something not notable enough to merit an article. Red links are preferable to external, commercial, product-selling links. 2005 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The template he is referring to is {{mtgcard}}, which should either be rewritten to comply with the Category:External link templates standard style (and be specifically restricted to the "External links" section of articles), or just taken to TfD (where it will almost certainly be (justifiably) deleted). – either way, someone is going to have to do some cleanup.
External links should never be permanently within the article body.
Probably because I use a hosts file, I cannot see any advertising at the Gatherer database. Yay hosts! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand 2005's third point where he contends we need to disclaim: External links should never be used to circumvent Wikipedia policies or guidelines for article creation. If someone creates an article which he then uses to insert an external link, that might raise a concern that said editor may have only used this article creation as an excuse to spam WP. Well, we already have a mechanism in place. The article itself has to comply with WP:NOTE, the content has to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPV. The editor himself may be subject to WP:COI and the external link maybe deleted because issues were found with WP:EL. Both, the new article and editor go through rigorous guideline's criteria that makes it almost impossible to spam. Only experienced editors and not new ones (with red-links) have more leeway to accomplish this without raising suspicions of manipulation. However, there is no need to doubt an old editor's contributions, especially if he is an administrator; the chances that he will engage in spam activities and risk his good name in the WP community are very small. For all these reasons, I feel there is no need to re-word anything or create new warning templates, things work just fine. Now, if this has nothing to do with what is being discussed, please, accept my apologies for my intrusion and just ignore my comments. Jrod2 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That isn't the topic here. The issue is if Red Creftsing doesn't merit an article (especially if it was afded), then external linking www.redcreftsing.com from the body of the article is not an appropriate thing to do as a way to get around the lack of notability of red creftsing for an article. 2005 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Red Creftsing? What on earth is that? Is that an example or a real case? In any event, any new article would need notability and/or have encyclopedic worthiness, right? So, no external link is going to create that for an article (see WP:ELNO, unless, it is indeed related and relevant to the article itself. Notability fundamentally emanates from our common knowledge, and consensus usually weeds out what is not encyclopedic. If you make a new article in order to insert an external link, there is almost no way that you will fool every editor at WP. Jrod2 (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with making new articles to insert an external link. Red Creftsing is made up. Here is an example. Here an editor inserted an template link in the second paragraph. This links to a commercial site 1) in the body of the article, 2) with heavy advertising, 3) not directly related to the topic of the article, and also it 4) links to an external article about the card Accumlated Knowledge when there there is no Accumulated Knowledge article. So, this template is being used in a way that violates this guideline in two clear ways (in body of article, not directly on topic of article), and one subjective way (the "objectionable" amount of advertising on the linked to page). I'm suggesting that text could be added here to also make clear the fourth way is not appropriate (linking WITH A TEMPLATE in the body of an article to some external page on a topic not notable enough to have an article itself). Hope that clears it up. 2005 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I sort of understand the idea. I am not knowledgeable on card game articles, but I do understand the following: The article is a biographical page that met the criteria for WP:BIO. The second paragraph where it appears "Accumulated Knowledge" needs a citation, someone thought the link was a good enough reference and within the context of this article. It also seems the other editors agreed. Honestly, I am still not even sure what that term means and would like a more direct description on the external link. As a WP contributor, I would like to ask someone to make an article about the term "Accumulated Knowledge" where that same link you showed me would be appropriate. In addition, rather than having it linked in that direct way, it should be replaced with the wiki link. Also, at the very least, it should be made into a footnote link. But, do I think it's a good and informative link? Not at all, we should find better. Jrod2 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, {{Bibleverse}} and {{Niv}} seems to be being used in a handful of good or featured quality articles, eg Noah's Ark#Secular biblical scholarship and Jesus#Resurrection and Ascension. So maybe these in-the-body external link templates are becoming allowed to a small degree? (Not that this excuses the bad usage of {{mtgcard}}; it just adds another angle, to this particular can of worms) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2005, I don't think you understood my comment at all: It's perfectly fine (under appropriate circumstances) to link to something that isn't notable enough to get its own article but is relevant to some other article. I made no comment about your other two concerns. My point is this: It's perfectly fine to link to an example of, say, gold Sculpey clay, even though Gold Sculpey clay should never exist because a single color of a single brand of polymer clay doesn't meet WP:N. In that case, the removal invokes editorial consensus and anti-advertising rules, not WP:Notability, which is specific to whether or not an entire article should be created. Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content and therefore can't be used to justify deletion of content (including external links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This guideline states that it is not "perfectly fine". In fact, linking to some external site about gold sculpey clay when those words are used in an article about paint violates this guideline in two ways: external link in the body of an article; and, external link to something not directly about the article. These two things are already clearly prohibited by this guideline, and while exceptions can rarely be made, when something plainly contradicts the guideline in TWO ways, it likely never should be done. (Also, external links are not content.) 2005 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you didn't understand, so let me try again:
  1. I say nothing whatsoever about external links in the middle of the article.
  2. I say nothing whatsoever about advertising or product promotion pages.
  3. I'm merely saying that if inside the ==External links== section or an infobox some wants to include a link that is BOTH (1) relevant to the article and hand AND (2) that is not sufficiently notable to deserve an entire separate article dedicated to that topic, then that may be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, obviously. But that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. 2005 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And now an editor makes an assertion that an external link template is better than a citation! 2005 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read back and forth both of your arguments, let me just say that, while you can argue that a link is not appropriate because it may be violating certain guideline(s), e.g. Accumulated Knowledge in the David Williams Card Player biography, because they are only guidelines, editors can decide to keep this link there (through consensus only), regardless of gross advertisement or even lack of notability. However, if you can find a valid point at WP:NOT, there is no argument then because it's policy. So, guidelines can be a lot more flexible through consensus, but policy is an absolute. That's this make sense? Jrod2 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure but even then they resort to ignore all rules. Still, even though some editors will always say an exception should be made for anything they like, we still should make this guideline as clear so silliness is restricted as much as possible. In this case, even though the guideline already says it in different words perhaps text should be added to simply say: External links templates should only be used in the external links section or infoboxes. If someone wants to ignore it, that's on them. 2005 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All I am saying 2005, and many users will tell you, that guidelines may say something, but general consensus may still prevail. A policy however, is not subject of general consensus and thus, the ultimate rule. What this means is that whatever you may formulate, be this templates or what not, could easily be overturned by a general consensus. Jrod2 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted to Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Links_to_Google_Print.2FBooks.

Recently I have encountered a user who is removing links to Google Print aka Google Books (ex. [5]). I am unaware of any community consensus for removal of those widely used and very useful external links. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The same editor has also removed links in Peterloo Massacre with an appeal to some guidelines that a discussion couldn't identify: the removal; the discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In respect of Google Books links generally, all bar one set of removals reinstated, after someone very kindly pointed out what the status of stuff on Google Books was. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm writing to get some clarifications regarding Wikipedia's external links policy. As a Last.fm staff member I've recently been adding external links to music related wikis (for artists) here on Wikipedia, links redirecting to Last.fm artists pages. I received mixed reactions from Wiki admins ((talk)): many of our links got removed, some other people thought they were relevant. In some cases there was already a Last.fm link added by other users. We noticed that there is even a Last.fm macro ({{Last.fm}}) that you can use to add links to Last.fm pages, so apparently there are already people in the Wikipedia community believing that Last.fm links make sense for the rest of the community.

Personally we think these links are a useful addition to Wikipedia pages, and with Last.fm being a user generated site itself we share and feel close to the Wikipedia approach to contents and moderations.

A Last.fm artist page contains media files such songs, videos and images for the artists. We have worldwide audio rights for tracks and free full streams now available in US/UK/DE and soon in other countries as well. All these contents are accessible for free and without asking to users any other commitment whatsoever, since we're totally ad-supported. We have rights to official music videos and interviews as well, all contents related exclusively to the artist and at the same time we manage the most complete user-generated music live events listing on the web. So we think this means good legal media content alongside Wikipedia's very detailed background information.

Our artists pages are owned by the community who provides and updates biographies, tags, reviews and other comments creating at the same time what is (probably) the most complete popularity data for all songs by most artists.

These are the the reasons why we would like to discuss, and we really appreciate the fact this can be done openly with the Wikipedia community, about why and how links to Last.fm artists can be considerated legit or not on Wikipedia music pages. We totally understand how adding these sort of links can be somehow considered as spammy, and of course we see "promotion" concerns Wikipedia has with this. Still, we honestly believe that Last.fm would be a real value add to Wikipedia readers, as a media and community focused external link to provide extra colour.

Thanks for listening,

Marco - Last.fm Staff --Mystical-bunny (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, you have a conflict of interest in adding those links. Any links added by a staff member should be removed on sight by any other editor. 2005 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
To put the above words in a more polite form, you probably shouldn't add links to last.fm yourself if you have some kind of conflict of interest. That's often seen as spam by many regular editors, regardless of whether the links themselves are fine or not. So, my advice would be to let the Wikipedians take care of that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with linking to last.fm, but it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Massively adding links to the same site is rarely considered a good idea. --Conti|✉ 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some policies and guidelines on these matters are available at WP:BFAQ, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and perhaps WP:NOT. If you are going to read only one, the first one is the best. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. There isn't any "probably" about it. It is a clear violation of several guidelines and policies, and could get the domain blacklisted, which would be a shame if it is a valuable one. Please read WP:COI, WP:SPAM and this guideline before giving misleading information to what appears to be a good faith editor in the future. 2005 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
User:2005 is right. There are no circumstances in which you can legitimately add your own website to multiple articles. It's a conflict of interest. What you can do, however, is leave a note on the talk page to propose that someone else add a link for you. If you have a good explanation and a specific, relevant page, then there are good odds that you'll be able to find another editor to agree with you.
BTW, just in case you weren't already aware of it, getting your website added to Wikipedia does nothing at all for your search engine rankings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, strike that "probably". Anyhow, I read that part of the guideline, and I can't find anything about reverting the addition of COI links on sight, or the fact that perfectly reasonable sites like last.fm might get blacklisted. Sure, it might happen if there is some massive WP:SPAM problem, but that's not what we're dealing with here, right? --Conti|✉ 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what we are talking about. Read the original post. A staff member was doing organized spamming. All spammed links can and should be removed on sight, and there are useful sites that have been blacklisted for spamming. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that no one is calling for last.fm to be put on the spam blacklist. User:Mystical-bunny has stopped to add links to last.fm once he has been notified that this was inappropriate, so I don't think we should assume bad faith here. --Conti|✉ 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No one assumed bad faith, and in fact comments are exactly the opposite. Please don't add strawmen arguments here. This is a straightforward issue, where someone acting in apparent good faith did something clearly in violation of policies and guidelines, and now presumably knows that. 2005 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright. No disagreement there. --Conti|✉ 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
2005: Which useful sites have been blacklisted for spamming? (I've glanced through m:Spam blacklist, but can only see pure-spam sites)
You've mentioned (at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#Wikifur and elsewhere) the idea of removing-all-links-on-sight and then re-adding where appropriate. This nuke-everything-and-start-over idea is a worst-case-scenario process, and need only be used when the editor/s at fault continue adding links after being informed/warned of our guidelines. Invoking the blacklist as a threat, is a bit heavy-handed – I think that's the point that Conti was making, when he suggested there had been an assumption of bad faith.
Your initial reply to Mystical-bunny of "Any links added by a staff member should be removed on sight by any other editor" does not seem to be referred to by our guidelines (?). See Wikipedia:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, specifically "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor..." and "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles".
What I'm trying to get at is, please, try to be a little bit more friendly with the newcomers. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To bring this back to a general question, and disregarding the related addition of links... What's different with this compared to, say, IMDB? Thanks/wangi (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No IMDb staffer admitted to COI spamming links. The issue raised here is whether a staf member can add multiple links to his/her company's website. The answer is a clear no. 2005 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks all for your feedback and clarifications. So eventually we'll go through talk pages and get in touch with editors. Cheers --Mystical-bunny (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
See also - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_22#Template:Last.fm
WP:SPAM template. --Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've boldly added affiliate links to the list of links normally to be avoided. Affiliate links weren't mentioned yet. Initially I wasn't sure whether they are appropriate or not so I've asked on the policy village pump: Are affiliate links appropriate? And Becksguy and gadfium answered that they're not. Becksguy additionally posted a similar discussion that had taken place in January 2006: Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 2#Affiliate marketing.

I think it makes sense to mention affiliate links so that the question doesn't crop up again. What do you think? Is that alright? Do you disagree?
-- Aexus (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically assumed by the rest of the guideline, but I tweaked the wording to make it clear that we also aren't interested in having tracking information on links that isn't from an affiliate... meaning we aren't here to make somebody's website visitor tracking easier. Links should be stripped to the basic URL. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I'm currently in a debate about the use of Erowid as an external link on the Kratom article, and by extension, all entheogenic articles. Could anyone with a lot more knowledge and experience please help, or clarify? I'm quite new to this, but to say that a very detailled and specific entheogen resource like Erowid shouldn't be used as an external link for the reasons Skittle has outlined seem rather preposterous to me. Thank you very much! 78.143.202.153 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we examine if a site that posts complete texts from a book is in breach of copyright? For example the astrological signs' articles link to mizian.com.ne.kr (eg. [6]) and its considerable content is completely taken off of Linda Goodman's book Linda Goodman's Sun Signs. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't know the answer to your question, but these people might be able to help you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why external links to Wikitravel are allowed to pass link weight for search engine purposes when countless other external links to high quality sites aren't? I realize the site also uses Wikimedia software but didn't think that would give such a huge extra advantage? It is without doubt a quality site, but in my understanding that is not what causes the rel="nofollow" to be added or not? Whilst some might consider it fine based on the quality of the content, it opens a very slippery slope by creating a huge unfair advantage over other travel sites that contain similar content. Furthermore, with the purchase of Wikitravel by Internet Brands, a commercial entity that has filed for a listing on the stock exchange and added advertising to the Wikitravel site, the waters have become even more clouded. One could easily wonder if they were not just purchasing the site in order to gain thousands of quality back links from Wikipedia, which they then have been channeling through Wikitravel to other far more commercial entities in the travel space that they also own.

Unless there is a really good reason why Wikitravel links should not contain the rel="nofollow" tag, it seems more in the spirit of Wikipedia to treat these links like any other external link to a quality site/reference. An example of such a link can be found on most pages dealing with a city/country, for example London (in the External Links area). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.207.26 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was handled automagically for all external links on the entire encyclopedia. Are you sure that they've been exempted from the global policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the Wikitravel site is linked via an interwiki link, not a pure external link. So the normal "nofollow" that's applied to external links doesn't apply. I'm not sure exactly how interwiki links work, so I don't know if there's something embedded within them that may perform the same task. But viewing properties on the links do not show the "nofollow" tag that is visible when viewing properties of normal external links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure as confirmed by Barek it's based on wikitravel being a wikimedia sister site. However it's no longer listed as such on the page linked to above which leads me to believe the change in ownership had that result. However the absolutely massive advantage of those links still exists for the commercial organization now owning wikitravel and linking from it to their other travel websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.207.26 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this guideline discouraged adding links to the websites of chapters from our articles on the national organizations, especially when the national website already has links to those local chapters. However I can't find anything about it, or any discussion here. Am I mis-remembering? Was it removed? Should it be added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What are "the national organizations"? Could you clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not just national organizations, but any group that has sub-groups with separate websites. The specific group/article that inspired the question is League of the South. It's a national organization with state chapters. The national website has a directory of state chapters and links to their website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that common sense dictates that we use only one link if the chapters are indeed national. For larger organizations, or those with an international reach, it may be OK in some circumstances to allow multiple links, although there must be a good reason to do so (such as notability in a specific country). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The question is whether we should add some text to the guideline to say so, or if it was there and then removed for a reason. Let's see if anyone has a recollection. If not I'll add something. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You can argue that a list of local/state chapters are inappropriate for an international encyclopedia. From WP:EL, you can claim that links to a dozen or more chapters exceeds the "Links should be kept to a minimum" and the "Long lists of links are not appropriate" rules; that it violates the spirit of "avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website"; and that a "well-chosen web directory category" is a better solution. From WP:NOT, you can argue that Wikipedia is not a web directory.
However, I would be happy to have an addition to WP:ELNO about this. Perhaps something like this:
  • Links to small or local organizations or charities, or more than one link to any organization or part of an organization.
This covers several of the possibilities: my local food bank (which can't help people anywhere else in the world), my new club (membership = me plus my best friend), every chapter in any organization (the American Red Cross has about 700 chapters), and so forth. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

user:2005 has reverted user:John Broughton's edit twice, and has asked that it be brought to the talkpage. I believe the edit makes the text less ambiguous, and more helpful/relevant, though it could potentially be improved even further. The edit adds links to two new locations, but 2005 states it is a "redundant addition". Comments? -- Quiddity (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The page already says it does not cover citations. How many more times do we need to say it? Three? Eight? It's redundant and illogical since every sentence could say "this doesn't apply to citations". Additionally the change from the word "used" to "visible" makes no sense at all. Substituting a confusing word for a clear one is not a good idea. External links should not be used in the body of the article, whether visible or somehow invisible. The and/or part makes sense. 2005 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree w/2005. Additionaly, citations are not external links and external links in the body of the article do not a citation make.--Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote from Help:Reverting - If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting. I do not believe that User:2005 followed that rule. My edit made changes to two items. If User:2005 considered the change to the second item to be redundant (I can see that point, though I happen to think that some redundancy is a good thing), then only that part of the edit should have reverted, not the entire edit. I have put my change to the other item back into the guideline. I believe it significantly improves the item (first, external links do appear in the body of articles in the form of embedded links; second, technically speaking, an external link within a footnote is in body of an article when viewed in editing mode; it's simply not visible to the reader.) I would appreciate it if Help:Reverting were followed with respect to this edit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You two edits were redundant to each other, and to the guideline. Obviously they should have been reverted together. The one you put back makes no sense whatsoever. Your misunderstanding of the guideline is rendering it incoherent. First you say: "first, external links do appear in the body of articles in the form of embedded links;" No they do not. This guideline does not address embedded citations. Don't introduce your confusion into the guideline. An "external link" for this guideline does not mean "link off site". Then you say: "second, technically speaking, an external link within a footnote is in body of an article when viewed in editing mode;" Once again, that is not an external link. It is a footnoted citation. 2005 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't normally point this out, but I wrote the book on how to edit Wikipedia: [7]. So I'd appreciate it if you would consider - just consider - the possibility that I actually have something useful to say.
I was going to write a detailed response, but I think your statement that An "external link" for this guideline does not mean "link off site", pretty much sums up the situation. You're essentially saying that an "external link", for the purpose of this guideline, is "a link that is in the external links section or an infobox". And if the guideline used that wording, then I'd have no objections. But that wordiing appears nowhere in this guideline. If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#External links, you'll see it contains a subsection about embedded citations. So - that guideline defines external links as any link - appearing anywhere on a page- that links to another page using a URL. Likewise, Wikipedia:Spam say Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. So that guideline is defining "external link" as "a link that goes to an outside website". Or read Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, which says in February 2007, the English Wikipedia instituted a policy that tags external links "NOFOLLOW." So that's yet another place where editors are defining "external links" differently (obviously the NOFOLLOW was done for more than just those links appearing in external links sections and infoboxes).
In short, if you want to retitle this guideline to something like Wikipedia:External links section, fine, but at the moment your position seems to be that it's perfectly okay for "external links" to mean one thing in this guideline, and another thing pretty much everywhere else - and let the reader figure it out, because the guideline isn't actually going to explicitly say that. Bizarre. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Submit your resume somewhere else. Please be respectful and don't appeal to your own authority. Your contributions are not one millimeter more important than anyone else. As for renaming, obviously that does not make sense because the guideline deals with one issue beyond that, and it is a critical one: external links normally should not appear in the body of an article, only inline citations should. Now again, this is all quite clear in this guideline. Other guidelines may need work, but the solution to non-conformity is not to change the guideline that is clear and consistent. Go fix the other ones that confuse you. Also, before replying, you should read the guideline since text you say is not in it is in fact in it: "include appropriate external links in an 'External links' section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. " 2005 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Making clear what the guideline is about

The larger issue I was trying to address in my edit (see prior section) is that experienced editors (I guess) know that this guideline is basically about the "External links" section at the bottom of articles. But that is not so obvious to the less experienced editor, who thinks "external links" refers to any external link. And yes, if one reads the guideline carefully, one can (I guess) figure out what it applies to. But guidelines should be written so that close parsing of text is not necessary to arrive at correct conclusions.

I suggest that the guideline would be much clearer if the order of items 1-4 were changed, to go (1) This guideline does not apply to notes, footnotes, or references that appear at the bottom of an article; (2) ELs should normally not be visible in body; (3) Minimal number of ELs; (4) Try to combine ELs to same website. I think that makes it much clearer (as I understand the guideline) that this is about the EL section and nothing

I also suggest that the "How to link" section - which DOES apply to external links in footnotes - adds to the confusion. I strongly suggest that this be changed to simply point interested editors to Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs, which goes into significant detail on this. (As a bonus, if the syntax were to every change, NOT having it discussed in this guideline would mean one fewer thing to update.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

People do mention that, but that is because they don't read the guideline. Your proposed edits just made the confusion ten times worse. The point that needs to be emphasized, right from the get go, is this guideline is not about citations, footnotes, sources, etc. It only deals with links to external sites that are not sources. Those links should only go in foboxes or in the external links section at the end of the article. The guideline is pretty clear about that now, but of course it could possibly be more clear. The main way to do that though is to say very clearly up front this guideline is not about sources, rather than repetitively talking about citations, when citations are irrelevenat to this guideline. 2005 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User2005, I think that the purpose of this guideline is to be useful to editors who are not already familiar with its contents. If putting "ATTENTION: This paragraph does not apply to anything used as a reference!" at the beginning of every paragraph in the entire thing turns out to be helpful, then I'm going to be in favor of such a maneuver. Redundancy may be ugly, but I'll take ugly over nonfunctional any day. Having said that, if you can figure out a way to make this perfectly clear without increasing redundancy, then that's even better. Keep in mind that many people will be dumped into the middle of the page with a link to WP:ELNO or another section.
As a first step, John's idea of limiting the topic to just things that properly belong in ==External links== and infoboxes might be a good one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But that isn't the point. Yes, putting a redundant line in front of every paragraph could be helpful. What is inappropriate here is the random addition of redundancy. Guidelines are always getting mucked up by single-purpose edits, like "I want to change this one line", which don't consider the entire document. Adding a dozen redundant lines would be logical, if not the best idea in the world. Cherry-picking this one section to be redundant doesn't make any logical sense. The discussion here should be: "can we make the entire guideline more clear that it never applies to sources?" The guideline already does make this point clearly, at least twice. Perhaps putting it in the nutshell that this guideline does not apply to sources would be a further improvement. Whatever though, just picking one section to diddle with is illogical and doesn't help the rest of the document. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The point, as discussed above, is that "external links" has a non-standard definition here. It's as if the guideline were titled "batteries", but was only about "batteries in electric cars", but didn't say that - instead it says "this guideline doesn't apply to removable batteries, or batteries in UPS systems which aren't removable", and so on, and expects the reader to figure out that the only thing it applies to is batteries in electric cars - even if it doesn't list all the other types of batteries that aren't covered by the guideline.
Is that analogy relevant? Not all external links are either inline citations or appear in the EL section or infoboxes. WP:GTL mentions a "further reading" section, which contains sources (and their links to external pages) that could be used to expand an article. Does this guideline apply to such links (what everyone else would call "external links") (and whether or not the guideline does apply to them, does it actually say that it does or doesn't)? And some articles have a "Notes" section; occasionally a note has a URL within it - does this guideline apply to such URLs? If not, where does it say that it does not? In short, why does this guideline talk about what it does NOT apply to, as opposed to stating exactly what it DOES apply to? Perhaps a good place to start (as noted above) would be with the title. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have problems with other guidelines. Please go there to discuss those issues. What precisely do you find unclear about: The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. Please be specific. How is that not clear? And then, This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the References section. What is unclear about that? Please be specific. And then also: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article... So far you haven't commented on what this guideline actually says, in very clear language. It's possible it could be clearer of course, but your wording was both confusing and redundant in an unhelpful way. As stated above, we could make it more clear, add a statement to the nutshell, but the guideline says repeatedly, bluntly, what it covers. 2005 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

If more clarity is desired, how about adding immediately after the nutshell, this text: This guideline does not cover links to external websites that are used as citations, references or sources. Such non-citation external links should normally never be used in the body of an article. They should only appear in info/nav boxes, and/or an external links or further reading section at the end of an article. For information on external citations, see WP:Citing sources. If someone then is concerned about consistency, it would be an excellent thing to go to various other guideline pages and see their language is consistent with this. 2005 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than add a lot of redundant language to the guideline - a valid concern that you noted earlier - I made some minor wording changes to the nutshell and to the first section in the guideline. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. 2005 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should the article List of Heroes graphic novels be inline linking to another wiki inside the article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that these links are appropriate. Neither are the Myspace, Nissan and NBC.com links in that table. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, for lots of reasons, but when this guideline says external links should not be in the body of an article it means list articles too. 2005 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, a little bit of editorial judgement is called for in applying this. If the outcome would actually be stupid -- say, a List of 100 favorite websites, which lists the 100 websites in plain text and then has an ==External links== section that re-lists the same 100 websites, but this time with clickable links -- then it's time to Ignore All Rules.
In the specific instance, however, I agree that there are some problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, otherstuffexists, such as inline external links at Noah's Ark#Secular biblical scholarship and Jesus#Resurrection and Ascension, so there does appear to be leeway given. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the use of interwiki links on that page. Interwiki links only get added for sites that are legitimate and useful resources, so on that page where all the graphic novels are listed with the writer and artists linked it makes sense to link to biographical information on them since most of them are not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. As I mentioned on that article's discussion page I think one alternative is to remove the links entirely, but that page used to exist as a sea of red ink to articles that likely will never exist. In its current format it is much more useful than it was before, but if there's an absolute bias against referencing any type of external information within the body of the article then the links could be removed entirely. Since this is a guideline and not a policy and also considering the non-absolute wording when it comes to links within the article body, any changes would require consensus on a case-by-base basis rather than a single determination that is absolutely applicable to all instances. --Centish (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You just listed why the links are not appropriate: "so on that page where all the graphic novels are listed with the writer and artists linked it makes sense to link to biographical information on them since most of them are not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia" If an internal link won't happen because it isn't notable, external links should never be used. All those links should be removed. No consensus is needed to remove things violating a guideline. A strong consensus needs to exist that an exception is called for. This pretty obviously is not one since you already stated these items would not merit articles on their own. 2005 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I listed a reason why there are appropriate. According to this guideline, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Wikipedia has guidelines of, for example, notability to govern content that's added to the articles themselves. Links such as these provide additional information that may not be suitable for inclusion into the article proper, but is still relevent, meaningful, and useful. And no consensus is needed to remove things violating a policy, however a guideline is just a guideline. It's not yet a policy because it's not yet sufficiently well-defined to be applicable in every instance. That being said there isn't even clear evidence that the guideline itself is being violated. --Centish (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You just made the case again. This guideline says external links should not be in the body of the article. I think you need to read the guideline. Also, you obviously are ignoring the merit argument. We don't make external links because the information in the site is not notable enough for articles. Look this is slam dunk. 1) External links should not be in the body of an article. 2) External links are not a way to circumvent the Notability guideline. 3) Wikis are normally links to be avoided. 4) Wikipedia is not a link directory. In contrast, there is nothing to suggest the links in the body of the article are a good idea. The guideline is obviously being violated in more ways than one. If any of the links qualify to be listed in an external links section, despite the normal open wiki prohibition, put them there. 2005 (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We do add external links when there is information not suitable for direct inclusion into an article (or when an article itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article here in Wikipedia). That's one of the primary functions of external links. Angela makes this point here as well. Concerning the other points made, wikis are normally to be avoided except where there are a substantial number of editors and a substantial history. For this particular wiki this criteria has already been met and it is also included in the interwiki map (the aforementioned requirements being criteria for inclusion there). The page in question is also not a link directory. A link directory is an article containing or created solely for the purpose of housing external links with no substantial information of its own or contextual reason for the links. The page in question documents the Heroes graphic novels including information on the writers and artists. Also, please bare in mind that the guideline states that external links should usually not exist within the artitle which is because there are instances where it is appropriate. Whether this is one such instance or not may be determined by consensus. --Centish (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not say there are instances where it is appropriate. It says normally, not usually. There is no listed reason to do have them in the body of the article. The exessive overlining in this article means "normally" is being ignored time and again. That's totally silly. there may be a reason for on external link to be in the body of an article on out of 10,000 times, but to have many external links in the body of one article is to blindly ignore not just the guideline, but common sense. Myspace links (!), videos, jpgs... this list is article is pathetic. The guideline directly says not to make articles like this: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. 2005 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Centish is right here: External links exist to provide information and "unique resources" that can't -- say, because of WP:Notability requirements -- be provided directly by a fully developed Wikipedia article. User 2005 essentially creates a pair of mutually exclusive rules: one must not provide an external link to anything that does belong in the encyclopedia (ELNO #1), and one must not provide an external link to anything that does not belong in the encyclopedia (2005's POV).
Now -- should it be handled as an external link or as an inline citation? I think the article in question contains a number of candidates for proper inline citations, beginning with anything on nbc.com. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually I would be in favor of an external link (in an external links section) in this instance. The material in the article isn't referenced from the external site in question in this instance, so I'm not sure whether citations would be appropriate here. For the NBC content I think it does make sense. Also since the links are to individual pages of biographical information I don't think we can create a single external link in an external links section that will accomplish what's already being done without ending up with a ton of links (which is equally undesirable). I personally also don't know about the necessity of linking to each individual artist/writer for each individual graphic novel, but that was something in place before I even first saw the page. I don't know if any prior discussion took place regarding that. Whether the individual artists/writers should have links or not is more a matter of general article guidelines, though, and less about whether they happen to be internal or external links. --Centish (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Further reading" section

WP:GTL mentions a "Further reading" section, which contains sources (and their links to external pages) that could be used to expand an article. This guideline does (as now written) covers external links that appear in such a section, since these are not inline citations, and they are not "citations of article sources". (They are potential sources, but not citations - citations are sources that support specific text in an article.) So should we have a separate section of this guideline to discuss what external links are and are not appropriate in the "Further reading" section of an article? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Further reading is definitely a difficult issue, since it doesn't seem to fit in with other guidelines. I personally think further reading should be offline stuff and external links something you can click. Having external links in the further reading section and then an external links sections makes one wonder if we should be just glancing at stuff in the external links section instead of reading it. Alternately, if there is a further reading section mixing offline and online, then there should never be an external links section... but that doesn't work because some links are videos or photos. 2005 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - my sense was that the external links section was really, really core stuf, while "Further reading" was things that would be good for inline citations, but no one has yet gotten around to mining the articles/books for material. For me, personally, I've started creating "Further reading" sections in articles because I often don't have time to add information to them, at least at the moment, but I don't want a potential source to be forgottne. (I tell myself that someday I'll get back to the article and actually use the source I've added, but realistically I guess I hope that some other editor will see it as an opportunity.)
So, it seems to me that the "Further reading" (a) shouldn't include sources already used for a citation/source in the article (this is obvious, I know); (b) shouldn't include links that are in the "External links" section (a case where redundancy doesn't add value, I think); (c) shouldn't include links to photos. I think it's okay for the items in the "Further reading" section to be external links (I used to do this differently - adding links to good newspaper and magazine articles to the "External links" section if they could be used to expand the article, and weren't yet used, but - as noted - I've changed my mind), and of course off-line sources are fine too. (In fact, if the sources listed are only books, WP:GTL says the section may be called "Books".) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you encountered any actual conflicts over this in a real article? I haven't, and I'm not really inclined to worry too much about the ideal phrasing of a guideline in the absence of any practical need for it. Unnecessary WP:CREEP is something that we should avoid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would very seldom put potential sources in a further reading section. External links, yes, but not further reading. Offline material is far more difficult for another editor to use as a source. Some folks a few months back wanted to change the external links section itself to "further reading" but that doesn't make sense since we link to videos, photos and maps in external links. I don't see any point to a further reading section unless it is parallel to an external links section for offline reading. Such a section should not be called "books" since books aren't the only further reading... there are magazines and pamphlets and legal documents. Books should be a subset of a further reading section. 2005 (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I haven't encountered any conflicts about "Further reading" (or any related to this guideline, for that matter); I just like to improve the clarity of guidelines and reference pages (or, at least, try to). I agree that this may be instruction creep, so I think I'm just going to work on the text at WP:GTL, which seems to be the primary place that "Further reading" is discussed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add these points to the guideline:

  • Do not use a raw URL.
  • Do not use "official website". Generally Wikipedia does not link to unofficial websites.
  • Do not use "website" as part of the link name. It is assumed that users know it is a website.
  • Do not use "homepage" as part of a link description.
  • Quote only the name of the website (and the country of origin if appropriate) as part of the link:
  • Unless it is the subject of the article always qualify the link with a description, preferably as succinctly as possible, and try to use the actual description of the page:
  • Wikipedia - Wikipedia:External links, a style guideline.
  • Wikipedia - 2008 Sichuan earthquake
  • If appropriate, state the country of origin of the website:
  • Multiple links to the same website must be indented from the root page:
  • Where possible links from the English Wikipedia should be to English pages.

Comments? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No raw URLs is a good idea, but not the rest. The second one in particular is just wrong since obviously the wikipedia does generally link to "unofficial websites". "Official site" is normally the best link text and should always be encouraged. Desriptions should be discouraged, and they lead to POV and promotional crap, and also are of little use. Simple, accurate links is the best style:
Leave the the descriptions to advertisements and link directories. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a need to now reinvent all the various external links sections beyond the style implied by the guideline (end of article). I'd love to see all the spammy and pointless descriptions removed, but also obviously some people do like descriptions, so no consensus on that seems like something to assume. 2005 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I think this is WP:CREEP. For example, I think that descriptions should be used when useful, but not when redundant or promotional. I don't think we need to specifically tell editors that. Have you ever run across an article in which someone contested this issue? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken on WP:CREEP. Agree with avoiding promotion and redundancy. I raised the need for a style guideline to get a better consistency on ext links. I suppose a consensus may eventually emerge and all articles will slowly be updated to match whatever that may be. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked domain name

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

A notable person with a large following also has organized opposition. As an example of that opposition, the unlinked domain name of an "anti" website is mentioned. The existence and nature of the website is established with reliable, 3rd-party sources. I don't believe that this guideline has anything to say about such a case. Is a domain name a link even if it's not linked? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Safe harbor" provision and EL

I assume the "safe harbor" provision, which says that so long as a site is not physically hosting a file that infringes copyright than it's not infringing copyright, applies to the external link restriction? This is important since many anime news sites mention fansubs (which violate copyright) but don't host any of the files related to fansubs themselves.[8] Buspar (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when do courts define or limit WP rules ? If the community doesn't want to allow sites related to copyright violations, there's nothing to add. The websites you're desperately trying do add don't just "mention fansubs", they are real directories of copyrighted files and are made precisely to help the distribution of the said files. They are by essence violations of the "copyright" policy of WP, whether or not there is a debate on the legality of the site itself. They are just contradictory to WP's spirit, and if you want to allow external links to torrent trackers, then you're opening the pandora box because torrents can contain much than just fansubs (which are illegal, I remind you, so I don't see why WP would help or promote their distribution in anyway)...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Folken. Wikipedia has no interest in promoting copyright infringements, whether directly or indirectly. Fans will just have to use their favorite internet search engines instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we slightly modify the "restriction on linking" paragraph to better reflect that (meaning "whether direct or indirect") because some people are using the somewhat vague and general formulation to claim that WP somehow allows "indirect links".
Something like "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright, or to websites helping in anyway the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, may be considered contributory infringement" [...] "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright or helping its distribution in any way, do not link to that copy of the work or to that site".Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem we need to solve: we apparently have a few editors that
(1) have learned that linking directly to copyright violations is not okay, but
(2) have decided to technically avoid this problem by linking to websites that link to places Wikipedia won't accept.
I think that adding a clear, unambiguous statement about this specific problem is a good idea. I'm flexible on the exact wording, but we need something that clearly states that this is unacceptable. Either or both of Folken's suggestions might work, or we might add a sentence that says "If a website cannot be linked to because it violates Wikipedia's copyright policies, then do not link to a third-party website that links to the unacceptable website." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This generally sounds like a good idea, but I would just like to say that we need to be careful with the wording to make sure we are solving the right problem. We don't want to link to directories of copyright-violating links, or websites that primarily exist to link to copyright-violating sites -- but at the same time, we don't want to create a situation where a legitimate external link has to be vetted for purity. For instance -- and I'm just making this up here, but I am pretty sure real life examples exist -- say we had an article about a notable whistleblower activist website. Having an EL to the website itself is a no-brainer. But what if this website had linked to a leaked document, and the document's owners were calling it a copyright violation? In that case, I think it would be quite appropriate to leave the EL in place. It is an appropriate EL, and nobody is using it to try and circumvent the no copyright-violating links policy -- it just happens to be a link that also links to an alleged copyright violation. I think it is important that the wording protect instances like that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Extending on this, this will clearly get us to far and I think should not be policy. As Jaysweet says, we should not link to sites which are intentionally or primarily engaging in copyright violation even at one remove. But this is very different from all places whcih might link to such a place. I'm not sure any large site it many areas can can avoid doing that among others. This is especially true as many otherwise good sites do not worry about anything other than direct violation and take no responsibility for the rest of the universe. We'd be eliminating too much. DGG (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added that when the subject of the article has its own website it is normal practice to place this at the top of the list of external links. By doing so however I should stress that I'm not wanting to create new policy here, but rather to state what now appears to have become normal practice by default. Vitaminman (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The rough definition this guideline uses is: "external link" = "link outside of Wikipedia". This needs additional explanation, because both sister projects and non-english wikipedias can be in some sense considered "outside" (for example, they use independent MediaWiki software instances). But I don't think that links such as pl:this link or meta:that link or wikt:pl:yet another one are really external. I don't think this guideline EVER applied to them, so I adjusted it accordingly. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% behind this - I see your point about other language Wikipedia's but think adding in yet more text about it makes the guideline more difficult to follow given that we don't seem to have had any real problems in that regard. On sister projects - while I think there's generally greater latitude afforded to these and we seem to encourage cross linking, I don't think there is carte blanch to add them without considering most of the issues in this guideline. It might be more appropriate to add to the "Links to be considered" section something along the lines of "Links to appropriate sister project pages" rather than say the guidelines do not apply.
Also not all interwiki links are to sister projects. I think wikis that are not a part of the Wikimedia foundation are definitely covered by this guideline regardless of whether or not they are on the interwiki map. Just want to point this out because it seems like you are using the two terms interchangeably. -- SiobhanHansa
Yes, I changed Kubanczyk addition to only relate to Wikimedia Foundation sister projects. This guideline does definitely cover those wikis not owned by the Foundation. The language is not very clear and the points being addressed don't seem to need to be addressed, but definitely any language must be clear that anything not owned by the foundation is external and is covered by this guidelines. 2005 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this guideline applies to sister links at all. I would like to point out that WP:SISTER guide is already regulating that aspect, so don't say editors have a carte blanche. I agree that non-sister wikis are "external", whether they are in the interwiki maps or not. This was my misunderstanding. By the way there is a proposed guideline for them - Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis). --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up recently here as well (currently in archive 21, which for some reason I couldn't add to the list on the right), but what about the difference in nofollow versus not nofollow. This is a huge difference from a search engines point of view. For some reason some sites that use Wikimedia software have the nofollow tag removed from all the 'external' links to their site. Wikitravel.com is a case in point. It is my understanding this is some kind of sister link, yet wikitravel is not listed there any more. This might not seem like a big deal, but it really is quite huge. One of the main reasons this site was bought by a big international site that collects travel sites and is being listed on the stockmarket, is that they were/are able to use all the back links from Wikipedia to get better rankings for all their travel sites. This goes directly in the face of everything that Wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.207.26 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I stopped by the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 - while taking a quick look at the external links, I noticed quite a few that are questionable (blogs, forums) and one that just seems completely out of place (the link to buy John McCain merchandise).

So, I checked the other two main articles (Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008) and saw these two articles have quite a few links that don't seem to fit as well.

With some of the heated talks going on on the talk pages of these articles, I thought it might be best to just bring the issue here and let the pros decide if and how it needs to be dealt with. Thanks. TheUncleBob (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2008

I say delete 'em - links should be informative, and link to offical candidate/campaign pages. On a page like that, unless it's a political commentator's extensive analysis of how the campaign is shaping up or dissolving, I'd say it shouldn't be there. WLU (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all but the official campaign websites, Wikipedia is not Google. We will have to keep a close watch on 3 articles though, I'm afraid their partisan supporters will put them back in soon. cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Holding links"

Hi all,

One situation that I keep running into is the use of the EL section as a 'holding area' for sources - someone will find an article that relates to the subject area and plop it down into the EL section. Is it worth editing the page to mention that this is a bad thing? Talk pages are a great place for potential sources, but the EL section is not. I'm not talking about the broad overview articles (i.e. an eMedicine article on a page about a disease, though that shouldn't be there either because of WP:ELNO #1), it's more like on sildenafil someone adds a pubmed journal article to the EL secton about how grapefruit can interfere with absorption in the lower intestine. Since it is a valuable article about one aspect of the page it's not really ELNO #1, but it's still a bad choice for an EL. Thoughts? WLU (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: That sort of link is not good, but maybe not always bad. IMO the editors who put that link in ==EL== instead of on the talk page aren't very likely to read WP:EL anyway, so adding that idea here is likely to be useless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremist and hate sites

Shouldn't this guideline clearly state that hate sites, sites by extremist, neo-nazi etc. organizations are not acceptable in external links section? Because now we have situation when external links section is used as a billboard advertising various extremist and fringe agendas. Only cure for this cancer eating up credibility of the whole project, I think, is to apply WP:RS standarts, not only to references, but to external links section as well. M0RD00R (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. But we do link to various "bad" sites in certain circumstances. For example, we link to the stormfront homepage at Stormfront (website). --Conti|✉ 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, WP:ELNO's #2, 4, 10, 11, and/or 13 probably apply to many of these sites. #4 perhaps in nearly all cases: "Links mainly intended to promote a website". It's also worth checking the users' contributions: Single (spammy)-purpose accounts can get blocked, and non-notable groups can be blacklisted. Do please post links to a few articles if you're having trouble keeping up with it: I'm sure you could find several volunteers to watch them for a couple of weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

EL's "Links to include" list mentions "reviews and interviews." I think this was meant to include things more like "professional" reviews of literary works, plays, movies, and the like. I assume that this was not meant to include epinions.com or similar consumer reviews, e.g., what the last hundred customers think about their newest computer.

If my assumptions are correct, can we find a way to communicate that in the guideline? An Amazon.com "review" is probably not what we're aiming for here. (Specific trigger: Breast pump's first link is to "unbiased reviews of pumps, general information about insurance coverage, and many other articles on breast pumping") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere we try to communicate the idea of independant and "expert", so perhaps that idea can be communicated more clearly here. Yes, certainly Amazon reviews are not the point. 2005 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I tried to put a external link on the 'Juniper Networks' page, it was on there for a very short time. We are a IT Managed Service Provider and we are a very strong partner of Juniper networks. http://www.quantix-uk.com/junipertechnology.aspx

We are allowed access to all of their content aswell.

Could someone help me as to why my link is not visible?

Quick response appreciated

Thanks

Quantix (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The link was removed in this edit. Please have a look at this guideline (Wikipedia:External links), and especially Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Generally, adding external links to your own company is seen as inappropriate, and it's best if you leave that to editors who do not have a possible conflict of interest. --Conti|✉ 14:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this. please see Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Limits?

Should there be a mandatory limit on the number of external links (that are not references) that can be given in an article? Here are some reasons:

  1. Search engines and other internet resources are sufficient to dig up websites on the same topic. If you can access Wikipedia, you can use these tools.
  2. Things like a subject's MySpace or Facebook page or places to download their works, etc. - are they appropriate for an encyclopedia?
  3. There will be a vast number of sites equally worthy of mention. Which one should be included? Isn't choosing one site against another being biased?
  4. A small number like 3 links is sufficient, especially those from websites that are WP:RS - I think applying RS policy to external links will give an encyclopedic character to the links.
  5. It is easier to enforce than the present ambiguous "minimum" qualification. This way editors can clean-up articles faster.

Maybe we can have a master link of Google this person/topic! and let people find the websites themselves. In any case, it can stop the bombarding of external links, make compliance with EL policy easier to achieve and keep the focus on expanding the encyclopedia rather than creating a directory of links to websites. Vishnava talk 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All articles aren't the same. A minimum for one type would be inappropriate for another. When there are many similar quality links we already have the solution of just using a Dmoz link instead. 2005 (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we have a maximum? The article type can only matter in actual content, not in weblinks, and that's my point - focus on developing content than creating a web directory. Look at George W. Bush#External links - a major topic and it has just 7 links; 2 are from IMDB and a Virginia college. In Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi#External links, half of them are from casual websites not specializing or well-known for that subject. As opposed to them, there are articles with as many as 10-15 links, most of them not WP:RS anyway. Vishnava talk 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
A while back I boldly added the following addition, which was almost immediately reverted:
"however, when multiple sites have the same or closely similar information, only one of those sites should be linked."
I still think this is a good idea; a stirct quantitative number (5? 7? 12?) is too arbitrary, IMHO. Thoughts, reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a terrible addition. The idea there should be edit wars over which one of five equal sites should be linked is not helpful. We have a good solution when there are many similar links, use a Dmoz link instead. If however there are two or three excellent similar resources, we should not have edit wars to fight over which one should be the "one". If it ain't broke, don't break it... 2005 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a solid maximum limit is bad - an EL section is not like "Further reading," which is mainly for books that are not accessible except in libraries and shops. If you can access Wikipedia, you can access any search engine and get the results - in fact, that's how most people come to WP (I think) as its among the first hits on Google. A limited EL section is saying "here are the kind of related info resources you can find on the internet," so go check them out or search for stuff like them on the net. There are too many cases of bios and articles on TVs and movies, etc. that have EL sections carrying official/unofficial fan sites, movie databases, reviews, etc. A long EL section doesn't make sense if you already have a website being used as a source. Another important point - an EL section containing too many links that are not WP:RS-compliant can risk hampering Wikipedia's reputation and quality, as people will include this is part of the content and character of Wikipedia and not just some examples of good internet resources. Vishnava talk 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
A solid maximum barrier makes the quality control real - how will things change if editors have to debate if a particular article should have 5 links or 8? How will one do that for 2 million articles? Naturally a lot of websites will look good, so how will one limit oneself. Frankly, if you're not using a YouTube site as a direct RS-compliant source, there's no reason for it to be there. People can do that digging for themselves - WP shouldn't come across as a directory, list or inadvertently promoting anybody. Vishnava talk 16:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It would do no such thing. A maximum accomplishes nothing, except to encourage spammers to add crap to articles below the maximum. Some editors resist the idea of quality and merit for reasons never really explained. Having four mediocre links is not better than having seven quality links. A speicific number is worthless, and encourages both spamming and edit warring. We have a guideline now that makes for very few problems, if followed. The focus should stay on quality and merit, and not a useless criteria. 2005 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand - how does it encourage spammers? Right now spammers can hide their additions in an article with many ELs. A maximum makes it easier to remove excess ELs - editors, RC patrollers or admins can just remove the extras and ask the editor who inserted them to discuss why they should replace the 5 existing ones. And if you have 4 mediocre links, you replace them with 4 better ones, prolly based on how close they come to compliance with WP:RS - knowing you need 4 good ones will make a discussion more effective, just like we evaluate if references are reliable or not. So how is it "useless?" In fact it gives you a basis to protect and enhance quality. Vishnava talk 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Vishnava, I don't think this will work. This is not a one-size-fits-all problem, and we don't want solutions that encourage mindless conformance with arbitrary rules. Editors need to have the freedom to use their best judgment. We don't want to tie up editors with unnecessary rules because it will be perceived as WP:CREEP, and they're going to Ignore All Rules anyway, so it will have been a waste of our time. Furthermore, as UnitedStatesian and 2005 pointed out, setting any arbitrary limit will always be a problem. It will either be too high (which encourages sloppy evaluation because "WP:EL says we can have two more") or too low (we exclude good links for no justifiable reason). I share your concerns about linkfarms, but allowing an arbitrary number of links in every single article will not actually solve the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
One more point: External links are not required to conform with WP:RS or WP:V standards. See item #4 here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Setting some sort of a limit, or explicit guidelines, on the number of external links is certainly worthy of consideration. Otherwise, how should situations such as that which is currently developing on the L'Oréal article, for example, be dealt with?Vitaminman (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think it will prove counterproductive. Any such limit will in practice be misinterpreted as a license. "You said we can have up to 10, and there are only 5." And suppose the limit is 8--it will keep out the 9th bad link, but not the 6th 7th 8th, when they're equally bad. There will furthermore always be cases where the purpose of providing information actually will require a fairly large number. Better to do what we do now--treat groups of large numbers of ELs as a strong reason for close scrutiny. It might however be very helpful to have a bot to put these on a special Page that could be watched: Articles with large numbers of external links. DGG (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Vitaminman, the first solution for a linkfarm is to start a talk page discussion about the WP:EL rules and how they apply to the specific links in the article. Most editors aren't aware of the exclusion rules like "no blogs", but if you tell them, they'll go along with it. It usually just takes a note like "I removed xyz.blogspot.com because WP:ELNO says no blogs in the external links." Editorial consensus is always your first step.
If that doesn't work, you can post a note here to get help from uninvolved editors, or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam or to the talk page of any WikiProject that is supporting the particular article to get help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, many thanks, will do.Vitaminman (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the question here. Hoping to get some input.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites

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

Hmmm...I've just come here now to suggest that section be altered, and I see that another user (78.86.146.148 above) also feels that it's lacking.
Anyway, I want to propose that an additional sentence be added to the "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" section. I'm not sure whether what I'm proposing is a shift in policy because, well, to some the policy does not seem clear.
This has come about from a small edit war I've been involved in, detailed here. It was my opinion that Enrique Iglesias's official YouTube channel could be added to the Enrique Iglesias article, but the other editor didn't agree, citing "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites".
I've had this sort of battle a few times before over YouTube links. Often I've just let it pass, because there seems to be this general assumption that YouTube links are not allowed. However, it seems absurd to me that links to article subjects' MySpace pages are permissible (there's even a template), but that links to YouTube are deemed not permissible even though they may be much more useful. In the Enrique Iglesias example, his MySpace page is a mish-mash of adverts, a chatroom, personal messages and so on, whereas his YouTube page takes you straight to videos of his songs. As he is after all a singer, to me the YouTube link is much more useful.
So I propose that a sentence be added to the "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" section as follows:
"However, links to pages that belong to the article's subject are usually acceptable. For example, it is acceptable to link to a singer's official YouTube channel."
What do people think?--92.40.88.133 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the nature of the proposed link. Is this an official site (under Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked #1)? Or is it basically a "search" on YouTube for anything that's been labeled as involving this performer? (How does a video clip get put into a "channel"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
First, to be honest, I didn't look at What should be linked #1, and on the basis of that I now reckon that it's already acceptable to link to someone's official YouTube channel. So I'll go ahead now and re-add the Enrique Iglesias. And fifteen seconds later someone else with Huggle will revert me again.
To clarify: On YouTube, a "channel" is essentially someone's account. So in this specific case, "EnriqueIglesiasPlay" is Iglesias's own personal account that he (or more likely his agents/record company) manages. Thus it's not a search query.
In general, if a YouTube channel/account is someone's official channel/account, I think it should acceptable as an external link, and that the policy wording should be adjusted to make it clearer that this is acceptable.--92.40.56.199 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, I agree with you, but I don't see the need to change this guideline. It's already permitted under #What should be linked #1. If other editors on the specific page in question disagree with you, then post a note here to ask for support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--92.40.28.147 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I need some help determining if a play list for a Let's play of La-Mulana is valid in the links section of that article. I've kept it up partly in defense of the topics notability, but several users over the past months have simply taken it down (with little or no explanation).Subanark (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked domain names

(I posted this back in May, but never received any feedback. The issue is still unsettled and it would be helpful to get some resolution of the dispute, so I'm reposting it to try to get feedback.)
  • In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.

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

WillBeback argues that including the name of a website, "ex-premie.org", in the text rather than the "External Links" section means it isn't a link and is not subject to External Links guidelines or BLP policy. Or that not making it a hyperlink means it isn't a link. It is a link because it connects the reader to a website that is subject to WP:EL and WP:BLP. The arbitration committee have recently decided that "administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy" as per [[9]]. This attempt to circumvent WP:EL and WP:BLP goes against the spirit of both. See also [[10]] as members of this group have been found guilty of illegal actions against followers.Momento (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to make this debate between involved users, but I need to point out that the website in question is not a group. Individual opponents of the biography subject may have performed illegal actions, but that is not relevant to the question of mentioning the existence of the opposition website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Google.com is not a link. This is a link. We aren't here to rewrite the language. Whether soemthing is mentioned in an article is an entirely different issue, but hyperlinks are hyperlinks, not unlinked text. The issue you have isn't appropriate here. 2005 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't a group, then it is one individual and has no place in the article. But it is a hate/extremist group of a dozen or so people who supported, colluded and financially contributed to the legal case which found two members of the group guilty of theft and contempt of court.Momento (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a website that has been listed in a reliable, 3rd-party source as an example of opposition to the subject of the article.[11] There's no reliable, 3rd-party source that says the website belongs to a hate group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion. 2005 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This is a discussion for article talk. There is a mediation on this case that is ongoing as well as an open RfC on this specific subject. There is no need for WP:Forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't forum shopping. Momento asserts that simply giving the name of the domain is a violation of WP:EL. We need to establish what this guideline actually means. So far, the only uninvolved editor who has responded has said that a domain name is not the same as a hyperlink. If we all agree on that we can end this conversation now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That argument is silly. Links are links. Text that isn't linked is not a link. This page is only about things that are hyperlinked. 2005 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support User 2005's view: If you have a BLP problem, then go off to WP:BLP/N for help. This guideline really only cares about clickable links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

photo-journal type blog - appropriate in this situation?

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

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

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

Second opinion

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

I support the removal. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. External links should be useful to the general reader, not just players of the game. Players who want to find scripts and tools for playing this web-based game can ask Mr Google about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. You explained it fine.--BelovedFreak 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Official site?

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

Perhaps check news articles about the person; some link to the official website as a "learn more" feature. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Various tools list domain owners, but often the information is obscure. If the person is a celebrity they're unlikely to register a site with their own name and address. Still, it's worth checking. Here's one: http://whois.domaintools.com/. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I will try to do some investigating. The article is Kathy Kirby, and the two sites are http://www.kathykirby.co.uk/ and http://www.kathykirby.me.uk/. One certainly looks more professional, but both claim to be official. Any thoughts? --BelovedFreak 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Website hosting free full text of APA DSM-IV

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

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

I followed the link, and it took five full screen scrolls to get past the merchandising/advertising and down to links to what are presumably more informative/instructional pages. While it may be appropriate to link to a relevant subpage of that site from an article, I find that the main page of the site to be entirely inappropriate per WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:SPAM. (Note: I didn't explore the sub-pages so have no immediate opinion on those at this time - just saying they may be more appropriate; I think the community should likely review those on a case-by-case basis.) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Was there a specific sub-page dedicated to Schefflera that you intended to link to? I agree with Barek; the front page is over-the-top adcopy. There's nothing wrong with content-rich commercial links, but the line between promotional and informative is pretty thin. That one is clearly across the line, in my opinion. If there some deep-linked, topical content, that bypasses the smothering ads, then maybe you could point it out? Kuru talk 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Links to commercial sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not. This seems to be a case of the latter. ("*Fukubonsai sale and information about Schefflera arboricola as indoor bonsai"). I gree with Kuru and Barek links to the root domain are promotional additions. Note additions such as this is both inapropriate, and unacceptable as a reference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell products. please remove those links, thanks --Hu12 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion of finding informative, non-commercial subpages. There was in fact a perfect subpage in that site; I edited the articles accordingly.
This being said, I think the "External links" section is sufficiently separate from the articles to allow some commercial content. I disagree with Hu12's accusation that I "promote a site" or "sell a product" when linking to the only reliable source on the web on one very specific subject, which happens to be commercial. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The actions of improving or maintaining Wikipedia should not be confused with adding external links. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic content on subjects, not to provide a repository of external links - other sites such as dmoz exist for that purpose. No policy or guideline guarantees or mandates that an external links section be included.
Also, keep in mind that ignore all rules is not a permit to do whatever you wish - accountability still remains. Be sure to review what "Ignore all rules" means before using IAR to justify any actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The actual material when one gets to it seems excellent & noncommercial and possibly unique on the web. . Unfortunately the site creator has foolishly set it all up a single url, and I can not figure out how to link to the specific parts. An explanation in the link would help: .url and click on such and such at the end of the page. DGG (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The current wording is what is intended. You are mixing two different concepts - a COMPANY that exists to sell products and a WEBSITE that primarily exists to sell products. They coincidentally will sometimes be the same, but the Pepsi website could have a 15 page essay on the history carbonated sugar drinks. They are still trying to sell Pepsi, but that site section would be full of useful information. Websites with nothing but product pages are not good links; websites that have encyclopedically useful information could be good links, even if some parts of the site also sell products. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear 2005,
Now I am even more confused.
When I am confused by the current wording, and when I try to get clarification I am told "The current wording is what is intended", the only conclusion I can reach is that the current wording is deliberately ambiguous and confusing.
Please forgive me for hoping that is not the case.
And the Pepsi example also confuses me.
The Pepsi web site exists primarily to sell stuff, right?
So does the "external links" guideline absolutely forbid links in any Wikipedia article -- except in the Pepsi article -- to any page in the Pepsi website, or not?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What confuses you? The wording is clear, and not ambiguous at all. The Pepsi website obviously does not exist primarily to sell stuff. It exists to tell people about the company. You seem to be thinking that the guideline prohibits any website that makes money, even if its content is the Magna Carta. The guideline says no such thing. Websites that provide useful information can be linked to (assuming they meet the rest of the guideline). Websites where the page text is 'click here to buy our stuff" should not be linked? For the most part the distinction is crystal clear. Maybe 2% of the websites out there may fall into a grey area but that is nit picking. 2005 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I find the phrase "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" ambiguous. Say I find a single page full of useful information, a page that says nothing about buying or selling stuff. But the web site as a whole (including all the pages on the web site) primarily exists to sell stuff. Does that phrase refer to "Links ... that primarily exist to sell products or services", so Wikipedia articles can link to that page? Or does that phrase refer to "... sites that primarily exist to sell products or services", so Wikipedia articles are not allowed to link to that page?
Please adjust the Wikipedia:External links to clarify which is intended. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What we intend is for editors to use their best judgement, in consensus with other editors of a page, in these borderline situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I've got an editor arguing on my talk page that I was wrong to remove a link to a forum[12] about the Great Wall of China because the guideline says "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". I can see why he thinks I've misinterpreted the guideline, maybe that bit needs rewording Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct. This discussion forum does not meet the relevant criteria, which is "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. To cite a contrary example, it would be appropriate for the article on Groupee Forums to have an external link to a forum. I don't think any rewording is needed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a section like this: ==When this guideline appears to contradict itself==
The normal order for evaluating links according to this guideline is:
  1. #Restrictions on linking. There are no exceptions to this rule.
  2. #What should be linked #1. Unless the link is prohibited under #Restrictions on linking, a link to the official website of any organization, person, or website should always be provided in an article that is directly and primarily about that organization, person, or website.
  3. #Links normally to be avoided.
  4. The rest of #What should be linked.
  5. Links suggested in #Links to be considered.
Alternatively, or additionally, the "confusing" text in ELNO could be removed, since "ELYES" authorizes it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is not about greatwallforum.com. It's about the Great Wall. Every external link has to be on the topic of the subject. Reading it like the person is, it would render every other word of the guideline obsolete. The line could just be Except for a link to a page that is the official page of the article subject. 2005 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
FTR, I support this change as improving clarity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Anything that discourages support groups and forums has my support, pending approval of exact wording. (In general, if these items are wanted, they should be added via a DMOZ link, see Tourette syndrome for an example.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Linking to websites that are not RS

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

I support tightening that phrase, although I'm not sure how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The person who introduced the line had some concern about blogs I think, which I never understood, but its in the archives somewhere about six months ago. The way I see it, it redundantly allows expert external links that have a point of view, like a biography of Ronald Reagan on the official Republican party site will have some bias. It could never be used to cite a line like "Reagan was the greatest president ever." But it would be fine to have that POV as an external link. However, in this case the official Republican site would be a reliable source for some things, like Reagan's birthday. I think such links are already allowed by the guideline so I'd get rid of this line as it just seems like an invitation to let everything in. 2005 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This rule still excludes everything in WP:ELNO. The main point is to codify the fact that external links do not have to meet WP:RS standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I have two questions/requests:

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

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

Normally you should not duplicate. Normally if a page is a source it should not be an external link also. I'd personally say "never" when it comes to the same URL, but if somesite.com/page.html is a reference I can see how sometimes somesite.com could also be an external link, but that should be rare. 2005 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The example that Steve cites is Rotten Tomatoes. We directly cite a film's web page for the overall reception of a film by film critics, and the web page also has an abundance of links to reviews that the reader can explore. Would that kind of duplication be OK? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see rottentomates.com in the refs on that page, but yes: you can both cite an official website as a reference and list it in the external links in the article that is about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikias

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

Disciss what? That you brought an inappropriate rant to this talk page? Your issue is not relevant to this guideline. Please take it to Village pump or somewhere appropriate. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That was somewhat uncalled for. This is where I've been directed, according to some Wikias aren't allowed in External Links, therefore my "rant" is appropriate to this guideline. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is something I've wondered about myself. Could someone provide a link to the discussion concerning the inappropriateness of adding Wikis to external links sections? I for one agree that they don't serve much of a purpose, but I'd like to take a look at (and/or link to) the discussion, if it ever actually occurred. Thanks! 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the above, including that 'rant' was uncalled for. Norse's point was a bit unfocused, I'll admit. I also note the use of 'deletionist' as a pejorative with disapproval. On the topic of links to wikias, the question is how do we decide what's a "good" wiki to link to, so if we could have some examples of ones that we think are acceptable and some which we think are not, would that help? - brenneman 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Links to wikis are not prohibited. Only links to open wikis without a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors are prohibited. The only reason for this concern is vandalism. An open wiki that isn't heavily patrolled is easily hijacked by spammers and vandals. We want to link to useful and high-quality resources. A vandalized or spam-filled page is not useful to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I can definitely see that as a main reason why links to outside Wikis should be regulated, but the difference between a good, stable Wiki and a bad one is pretty vague and should probably be spelled out a little clearer in this guideline. This entire discussion is based on bits and pieces of User:AnmaFinotera's posts on various talk pages being rather claiming that Wikias can't be linked to in a Wikipedia article, usually pertaining to the Naruto and http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Recentchanges One Piece] Wikias which both seem rather large and decently maintained. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Links to large, decently maintained, stable Wikis are allowed (assuming, of course, that there are no other objections to them). If several editors agree that the relevant wiki is stable and actively maintained, and that the link in general would be good for the article, and you have just one editor declaring that WP:ELNO prohibits it Wikis entirely, then you can post a link to the article's talk page here and ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

More proscriptive is the point. Reviews and interviews are good examples because they always have a point of view which is not appropriate for sources, but can be good links. A general link without the examples just opens the door any sort of relevant link. 2005 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to change that to say "only" than your argument would be more acceptable. In the absence of that restriction, the clause does nothing to add value. - brenneman 04:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It obviously adds value, even if you don't think it is a positive value. What are you talking about, "only"? 2005 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh... You're saying that it obviously adds value even if it's negative? That's a really odd statement, but to ignore the semantics of "delta value" == "add |vaLue|" or somesuch:
  1. The current sentance says "such as" and therefore
  2. It refers not only to reviews and interviews but to other material as well.
Your sprinkling of "always" and "opens the door" have me a bit confused by your objection, so can we agree on 1 and 2 above to start? - brenneman 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of having "reviews" listed in either ELYES or ELMAYBE, but not both. I prefer ELMAYBE, and I prefer language that excludes consumer reviews (but not, for example, book reviews written by professionals). Actually, perhaps that whole line should move to ELMAYBE, precisely to keep it from seeming like a blanket authorization.
This confusion, BTW, is what I had in mind when I constructed the "order of interpretation" in the above discussion. ELNO trumps otherwise "meaningful, relevant content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course it refers to other things, since the phrase "such as" is used. Please state plainly why you are objecting to examples. You're running in circles here. 2005 (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recently, User:Para and a couple of others turned up to remove these links, and to add Geohack coordinates instead — 51°28′50.34″N 0°9′44.17″W / 51.4806500°N 0.1622694°W / 51.4806500; -0.1622694 (Modern Brown Dog memorial) and 51°28′18.47″N 0°9′42.55″W / 51.4717972°N 0.1618194°W / 51.4717972; -0.1618194 (Original Brown Dog memorial) — which when you click on them leads to a list of links of map services.

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

However, User:Para is insisting that there is a consensus to remove Wikimapia links from all articles on Wikipedia, and as his contribs show, this is all that he does at the moment. He is continually reverting at Brown Dog affair, and says he will continue to revert because only the Geohack link is allowed. [13] He is accusing anyone who wants the Wikimapia links of having a COI, though has not explained why.

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

Avoiding hardcoded external map-links is one of the goals of the WikiProject Geographical coordinates and it follows the same rationale why we don't allow direct links to amazon.com or barnesandnobles.com, but instead have ISBNs link to a provider list. Another reason is machine evaluation of geocoded articles, using coordinate templates follows the idea of the semantic web. We have a style for coordinates, and we should consistently use it, an that means no direct links to map-providers. --Dschwen 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer SlimVirgin's questions, Dschwen. There seem to be three:
  1. Is there a consensus that only Geohack may be used?
  2. If so, where was that decision made?
  3. What is the harm with having both a coord (GeoHack) link and a direct link (as a compromise)?
-Arb. (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This issue again :( Can we turn the question around and ask SlimVirgin what the call is to have the Wikimapia link? What does that provide that the Geohack does not? I can guess - the authors specifically wish to illustrate an aspect of the location that they can only do by showing a picture at a certain resolution, whereas Geohack doesn't zero in on the information they wish to illustrate. Ideally Geohack could be improved to allow users to designate their favorite default mapping service so they don't have to click around each time, and it could accept as optional parameters the article editors' specifications for which service to use and at what resolution / format in the exceptional cases where the authors wish to show something specific. We're not there now, so I don't see a problem having a hard link in special cases if there's a specific reason for it. Wikidemo (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence sounds very reasonable. Beyond that, is there some difficulty answering the questions straightforwardly (perhaps there is in fact no consensus). The questions were:
  1. Is there a consensus that only Geohack may be used?
  2. If so, where was that decision made?
  3. What is the harm with having both a coord (GeoHack) link and a direct link (as a compromise)?
-Arb. (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we are almost there: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates&diff=224637723&oldid=224563809 --Dschwen 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not the authority, but to take a stab at it: 1) yes, there is an overwhelming consensus to use Geohack. There is rarely however a consensus to only do something because of WP:IAR, which is what I was getting at. When there's a reason to use something else I see no harm doing it. For #2, The decision seems to have been made over time in a variety of places and in practice. You can search the archives here for some earlier discussions, and also the project page. Consensus is descriptive, existing as a matter of practice. The vast majority of location links are Geohack, and that practice emerged over the past year or so. For #3, The harm of using alternate systems is several-fold: (A) lack of consistency; (B) arbitrariness; (C) lack of predictability); (D) favoring one often commercial provider over another; and (E) indiscriminate linking. If each location link were doubled or Geohack were omitted it would cause a bigger problem. An occasional link doesn't seem like much of a problem to me but others may have other ideas. I think SlimVirgin knows all these arguments because she has participated before in these discussions. I suspect the issue is to get them out on the table again so this doesn't become an issue with a new FA. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the good points you mentioned, I'd like to add one related to D but partly separate that wasn't discussed a whole lot the last time around: (f) duplication, hence deviation on corrections. Linking to a service that doesn't provide anything significantly more useful or relevant than its alternatives is detrimental to the quality and common Wikipedia style on recording the location of objects. This is especially true when the link is to a well recognised brand name, or a name that has the word "map" in it, or to pretend being a sister project, even "wiki". Many of the map links I have converted (note to SV: that includes multiple services and not just one) have had no placemark in the linked service at all and it has been difficult to find which of the many objects in the view is the one mentioned in the article. This is not to say that services wouldn't have placemarks, most of them do, but the editor who added the map link decided not to take advantage of that feature, or the service is just so full of placemarks that the intended one gets lost. Coordinates however have much higher visibility than single links; people constantly review them on Google Maps, Google Earth, Multimap and GeoNames, among others, and they are therefore much more likely to point to the correct location. However, when an article mentions an established brand name as the primary source of further information, readers accessing Wikipedia directly are more likely to click on that instead of following the neutral educational route. --Para (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This was talked to death here. Search the archives yourself instead of repeating the same questions over and over. The Geohack is the not great equivalent of an ISBN number. In some rare instances a unique map might have some greater detail, or show something in a historical context, but in general having a specific map is as inappropriate as having an Amazon link. This whole circular discussion could be a lot more productive if it was focused on why a certain map should be an exception. Without an argument proposing that, individual links should be removed, just like Amazon links should be. 2005 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Can we turn the question around and ask SlimVirgin what the call is to have the Wikimapia link? What does that provide that the Geohack does not? I can guess - the authors specifically wish to illustrate an aspect of the location that they can only do by showing a picture at a certain resolution ..."
Hi Wikidemo, the reason is that there's a rectangle drawn around the precise locations on Wikimapia (the exact locations are quite hard to find otherwise), and we'd like to use them to help readers who might want to look at the new statue or the old one's location. We've already been told that it has helped one editor. Am I right in understanding from the above that there's no consensus against linking to Wikimapia when there's a reason to do so? SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, now that you've appointed me the consensus-declarer :) -- I would say that although there is consensus to use Geohack as the exclusive locator tool in default situations, there is no consensus that an additional tool offered as a convenience in special cases is categorically wrong. So I would say that anyone who wants to delete the link in this case ought to have a good, specific reason why it is a bad link and not just a preference for Geohack. That is my ruling. Wikidemo (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If the default situation is to point object locations with coordinates only, shouldn't the decision on inclusion then be the other way around, like 2005 said above? That is, when a map link has been added to point the location of an object, there needs to be a good, specific reason for it to be better than all the others and kept? In this case two users argue that the rectangle in the linked service makes it better than any other, but the placemarks provided by other services for coordinates do just the same, so there is no reason for a specific link. SlimVirgin also says that it helps readers who want to go look at the statue, but the service doesn't even have the function to show directions from another location, which actually makes it much worse than many alternatives. --Para (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimapia seems very good for one specific circumstance - when pointing out the precise location of a very small object. MikeHobday (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In your edit summary you mention "support WikiMapia under strictly limited circumstances". What are they? All WikiMapia images come from Google, and Google Maps allows pointing very small objects just as well as WikiMapia does. The maximum zoom Google gives the viewer is also zoomed beyond the resolution of the image and is therefore false detail. The resolution of the aerial images in some other services seems to be just as detailed, they just haven't decided to scale them up. If an article needs to point an object in a satellite image, this wouldn't then be sufficient reason for inclusion of a specific link when alternative services contain similar information. --Para (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clearer. I meant the circumstance where a very small object's location is being highlighted. Clearly I can see from the article history how this works with Wikimapia. Could you show me how the type of link you prefer does this just as well? Open to be persuaded. MikeHobday (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, having a little box instead of a marker (which you get via geohack) seems like a minute advantage if any at all, especially for very small objects. --Dschwen 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a bunch of relevant services behind the general coordinates link found in the external links section of the article, and on the article's talk page I mentioned some alternative services that many readers are likely to find useful. But if I have to pick some personal favourites from the listed services to see the object, I would choose the Flash Earth service, where you can easily compare imagery from different sources, though they have unfortunately dropped Google from the list, probably not by their own choice. Microsoft Virtual Earth (or Live Search Maps like it's called on the list) and Ask.com/Multimap.com aerials seem to be the clearest and best resolution today, though there's some shift between the two. Google Maps (and so equally WikiMapia) isn't too bad either, especially if looked on Google Earth. What I really like though, is the oblique imagery of the object in Microsoft Virtual Earth, Ask.com and Multimap.com (which use the same NAVTEQ/AND/Intermap/Blom/Getmapping plc data at the moment, for the aerials as well), I think they give the most natural view of the object and the surrounding area. Don't miss that you can turn the view to look from four different directions! They all however have slightly different user interfaces and placemarks, all clearly showing the location, but readers may feel more comfortable using one that the editor who added the link doesn't like or know about. All these services allow zooming fairly close to the object or far from it, with the placemark set the whole time, but the default is in between as we don't know what kind of information the readers are after, or if they really even want a satellite image. For maps the available range of services is even wider, but perhaps people can do that adventure themselves. --Para (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Those look excellent. Unfortunately, the current article link, to [14] leads to some pretty poor links like [15]. I can't help thinking that either your new links, or the wikimapia link, would be better in what I have said is the exceptional case of a small object. MikeHobday (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
But those links were from the list behind the coordinates link, they're not new. What are they exceptions to, when there are so many of them, and when there are many Wikipedia articles of objects of similar size? I wouldn't say Yahoo Maps is a poor service, it's quite a popular one I understand, and seems to me like a good and clear street map, definitely useful for people who want to see where the object is. The resolution in their satellite image isn't high enough for locating the object accurately, but it will most certainly be helpful for anyone looking at the view. For that purpose I would argue that prepared maps are even better than satellite images, because the visible features have been chosen according to the viewed scale. I don't see anything exceptional here. --Para (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Wikimapia and copyright?

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

No it is not ok, as far as it is not free content. They use Google Maps. --Dschwen 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean for possibly copyvio reasons its not OK, or because its not free content? ELs don't have to be "free content". rootology (T) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

From Google_Maps#Copyright:

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

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

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

"WP:LINKSTOAVOID" tells us that:

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

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

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

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

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

  1. 1 is intended to be the sole exception to our general restriction against linking to non-reliable sources, since the subject's own official site is bound to be a nest of POV and COI violations. It permits linking to "the" official site. That to me does not constitute license to link to a raft of additional "official sites". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed the first clause talks of the official site, singular; but it does not go further and explicitly say that the official site should be limited to one. The second one seems to allow a site such as this. The third rules out Myspace except for a site such as this. There's been no suggestion that I recall of linking to any "raft" of additional "official sites"; the question is of whether to link to a single additional page. I'm about equally puzzled by the determination of one user to add this and by that of the other party to remove it. The more I think about it, the more I think it should stay: even if it's short on factual information, its idiosyncratic design esthetic says a lot about its subject. (Still, as it is after all linked from the official official site, its deletion hardly matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


_____________

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

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

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

I don't see any reason not to treat "official" MySpace sites like we would treat any other "official" website of an article subject. Those links are generally considered appropriate, and I've seen them in common usage all over Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
However, if the "official" site is already an EL then there is no need for the Myspace link. That is, if the EL section contains a link to www.bandIlike.com then we have no need for www.bandIlike/myspace.com External links should be used very sparingly if at all. The guideline tells us "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." if the official site of the subject is already linked then there is no justification for the Myspace link. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh - there are lots of article subjects with more than one official site. I think people are getting worked up over nothing. The links are there for the convenience of our readers who want to further explore and/or research a Wikipedia topic. The article subject's official websites would pretty clearly fall within that purview. See the "what should be linked" section of this policy. Kelly hi! 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Something like that should be handled on the article talk page of the article in question. No need to seek a change in site policy for a simple content disagreement. If you can't come to a consensus, use dispute resolution. Kelly hi! 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This is covered by the guideline. If it is an official myspace, link to it. Having more than one official site is common and no problem. If there gets to be several official English-language sites, a discussion on a talk page can take place. Here if there is are just two, link to the Myspace too. Linking to only one official site is not the guideline, and is frankly just obtuse. Many companies have consumer sites and corporate ones, and linking to both is the norm and should be. 2005 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 2005 is correct here. Kelly hi! 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI but I believe MySpace blog links are blacklisted by default unless specific links are added to the whitelist... Gary King (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, blogs are, for some reason, but not homepages. Kelly hi! 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually, those weren't official corporate websites of the subject of the article. No way would L'Oréal confuse people with 27 different official sites. The links you so appropriately deleted from L'Oréal were nearly all links to individual product websites. The mistake of external linking to child categories from the parent article is fortunately not that common but when we find it we can fix it for sure. External links are there for the convenience of the reader. It really depends on the specifics. For example if you look at the Maldroid article I think it illustrates your point. The Myspace link is superfluous because it's so prominent on the main site http://www.maldroid.com/. So is their label's official site on Fuzz.com (under the "music" tab). On the other hand the official site for Sunny Leone (http://www.sunnyleone.com) is much different from and not linked in any usable way to her myspace page (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7569049 - yes, that is really her). Or, say, Mark Pesce - he has a personal site[16], a professional site[17], and a blog[18] (as a blogger/tech pundit his blog is a legit external link too); he doesn't seem to have a myspace page but if he did it would probably not be useful to link. So I generally agree it's up to the regular editors to decide. Only, in many cases the regular editors are out of touch with the WP:EL guideline...usually in the direction of way too many links. Wikidemo (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tsurugaoka, this problem doesn't come up often enough to justify re-writing the guidelines. We have already told you that the inclusion of an official MySpace page is not prohibited under these guidelines. We have already told you that linking to more than one official website is not prohibited, assuming that external links are still kept to a miniimum. You have all of the information you can get from this guideline: the link is not prohibited.
The difference between "not prohibited" and "the best option for this specific article" is important and is not the subject of this guideline. You and the other regular editors of that page need to build a consensus about whether or not the link is justifiable. You need to agree on whether its inclusion or its omission is the best option for the general readers of the article. (N.B. that general readers are not die-hard fans). Nobody here can do that for you, because it requires knowledge of the specific topic of the page.
If the regular editors of the page can't agree, then I suggest that you follow Kelly's suggestion of using Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, then everything shall be OK from now on! Because those editors sole reasoning to erase the link was that the link "IS prohibited" and that "we" are supposed to allow only "one(1) single Official site" per article. Thank you for clearing this up and if the problem will occur over and over I will rather suggest those disruptive editors to be blocked from editing.Tsurugaoka (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
AND the reason to keep any additional links listed MUST also be better than "it is an official site." It must be justifiable under the guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, "under the guidelines", there are really only five remaining questions to ask about this particular link:
  • Is it accessible to the reader? (This is about access for disabled people.)
  • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  • Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
  • Does it have meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article?
  • Does it contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, even though it's not technically a reliable source (for most purposes)?
This actually sets a fairly low theshold for inclusion, especially since we know that several of the answers are yes, so let me add that it's not just "justifiable under the guidelines" that matters: it needs to be justified in terms of common sense and value to the general reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

You are talking about a source so the external links guidelines do not apply. You're probably better off asking at WP:RSN. If you're looking for quick opinions I would say from a reference perspective without having looked at this particular case that a geocities page is almost never an acceptable reliable source for most assertions and ideally you would reference the published book and provide a courtesy link to the information on the geocities page. The links XLinkBot reverts are not "banned" they just have an overwhelming tendency to be inappropriate on Wikipedia articles so extra steps are required to make them stick. -- SiobhanHansa 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ma'am! --Betta Splendens (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

ELs are not that important; it's references that count. If you suspect something is inappropriate, delete away; we can always bring it back. Always leave an honest edit summary. --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
True, 19 times out of 20 the people adding invalid external links don't complain when you remove them. If they do, and want to re-add them, I agree with Adoniscik, they're not that important and one too many links never hurt anyone...as long as it's not blatant spam, an attack site, a BLP violation, a complete organizational mess, etc. Ideally they would explain why the link is valid in the edit summary or talk page - not really necessary when adding it for the first time, but it's only common courtesy to discuss things and try to work it out once it's become a point of contention. Wikidemo (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
One key element is time. If a link has been on the page for more than a year, and thirty or more logged in editors have edited the page during that time, just removing a link without an editor note is pretty presumptuous. On the other hand removing a link dropped by an IP address two hours before is usually just fine to do without any comment. There is no one size fits all answer. 2005 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done a fair bit of this. If it's a heavily edited page (AIDS, for example), then I would start a discussion about specific links. Otherwise, I just delete them. Usually, if I'm deleting one link, I put a reason in the edit summary. If I'm deleting a lot of them, I sometimes list the reasons (in order, one for each link), and sometimes just say "Weeding the link farm" (especially if the reasons are pretty obvious). I get (very) few complaints, and those are usually from anons who want to include clearly inappropriate links, like internet chat rooms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Readings

Hola,

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

Wow, there are a lot of external links at Abraham Lincoln.
Is there any reason why an audio file is better than a plain text file? Does this link to the audio file duplicate material in the other links (i.e., how many times is the same speech linked here)? Why isn't a spot in one of the two DMOZ links good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And what does the audio file add? The document will normally be linked as text in most cases; blind readers will already be using text-to-sound conversion since wiki is a text-based media. There's no analysis or research in the files. I don't see a lot of value added, perhaps if no text version is available then there may be some benefit but it's still redundant to a text version showing up in my mind. WLU (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, Thanks for bringing this up on the EL section. In my humble opinion, there is a huge benefit to audio links other than for the blind. I travel a lot (driving, flying) and carry about 20 ejunto books on my iPod. There's no way that I could have made it through the Communist Manifesto 5 times in the written version, I'm just too busy. I'm assuming this is the case for a lot of younger people where they digest media through podcasts etc.
I don't represent ejunto. From what I've seen, ejunto takes a different approach than Librivox. For text it works great for many contributors to edit and splice and come up with a polished product, but for an audio book the results can be less than satisfactory. Ejunto is taking the capital intensive approach of producing free, high quality recordings. As far as I can tell, the project is run by a former historian out of his home. He's personally recorded all of the books himself, and may need the advertising just to cover the cost of running the site. His Longwindedness... Beaster77 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That being said, 'it's convenient for busy people' isn't a criteria of WP:EL. It adds nothing informative or encyclopedic. You may consider adding it to the DMOZ site as WAID suggests above, I believe they would be much more open to a site like ejunto and the DMOZ is often used to link to resources that are not good choices for wikipedia on an individual basis, but in aggregate are useful to readers. WLU (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This presents a double standard in my view. There's no substantial difference between ejunto and LibriVox -- both deliver on their promise of free audio recordings. They're both non-profits, have a mission of promulgating freely accessible information, and I don't see a violation of EL guidelines in posting them. If ejunto is to be excluded, so should all other audio recordings of the same type and I think the EL guidelines should be changed to exclude audio of this nature. The real reason ejunto is being excluded is because of the sloppy manner in which I posted the links, which is unfortunate and insufficient grounds for preferential treatment. Beaster77 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Rich media links are officially deprecated. Large pages are officially deprecated. Anything that is inaccessible to people using dial-up modems and microbrowsers is officially deprecated. Beaster77 is right: all of these links should be removed unless they provide content (not format) that is unavailable in plain old text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

An external link should generally be available to the general public: see Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. While it wouldn't be a good external link, a Jstor link would probably be a reasonable reference. - Eureka Lott 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Jstor links are (clearly) appropriate as convenience links for references. They are not desirable for external links for exactly the reason you identify. If there is a truly exceptional circumstance -- maybe a link to an original document in an article entirely about that document -- then the occasional Jstor link might be acceptable in external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_21&oldid=1251936838"