Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Footnotes as part of the "body of an article"?

I submit that "body of an article" -- the term used in the guidance -- is vague. Does it include ELs in footnotes not used as references? If not, then the guidance as to "body of an article" should be clarified so that WP:ELNOs etc will not be included in footnotes. --S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem with rules (see WP:BURO where it explains that we don't even try to spell out exactly how things operate): the problem is that no single formula will apply to every situation. Generally external links in the body of an article are unhelpful and/or spam. There may, however, be cases where consensus feels such links are helpful (such cases need to be assessed individually). If you have an article in mind where people are disagreeing on this point, please mention it at WP:ELN (not here). The only reason to discuss something here is to propose a change to the guideline, and that should generally happen after consensus in one or two other places finds a problem with the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- your explanation is much appreciated. WRT the guidance, how about adding a parenthetical "to include footnotes not used as references" to the "body of an article" explanation? (And please leave the dispute tag on for a day or two -- I have someone in mind who might want to weigh in.) --S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My answer to your original question is that WP:EL "does not apply to inline citations or general references" (point 1 of Important points to remember), but it does apply everywhere else, including footnotes not used as references. The principle is that if a link has merit, it will contain some useful information and be a reliable source. If that is the case, the information can be used in the article and the link used as a reference. Otherwise, the footnote is (generally) just a device to avoid the "reliable source" and "external links" rules, and the link in such a footnote should be removed.

I'm pretty sure that putting a large "disputed" tag in the middle of a long-standing guideline when there is no dispute (just this very minor discussion) is not helpful, but I am happy to defer to the opinions of others on whether the tag should stay. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, John. I expect this little push of mine on the WP:POLE will resolve soon. I expect no changes to the guideline are forthcoming. But your patience for <24 hours will be appreciated. --S. Rich (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fifth footnote gives an example of the principal problem that the "body of an article" issue is intended to address. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. (And I've rolled back my reinstated discussion tag.) What I am trying to address is clarity that "body of the article" is vague in that it does not directly say "Footnotes are part of the body of the article and EL policies apply to footnotes as well so long as the ELs are not used as RS." I will cogitate more. Thanks! --S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to a diff of the link being disputed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am confused here. This guideline refers to everything which is not a proper reference (those should follow WP:RS) - my general opinion about references is, that they should be useful to validate the information they are referencing, people who read the Wikipedia document should get the information about the subject they need, they should not NEED to follow the links of the references, and though certain references should NEVER be linked, and editors should check whether the references are reliable sources etc., the casual reader will not have to follow them. References do not even need an external link, they should, unambiguously, define the work that is used to write the piece of information that is in the Wikipedia page.

Links should not be in the 'body' of the text, i.e., not in the prose, if a subject in a sentence does not have an own Wikipedia article, then we do not use an external link to link to that. It either becomes a redlink, or no link is provided. Those are external links which fall under this guideline (and under WP:MOS &c.)

Now, 'further reading', 'general notes', etc. are forms of external links, they all are linking to information which is not included in the article, which contain more info about the subject but which were not used to write parts of the document, or can not be used to write new parts of the subject. It may include even duplicates of references, when the references are just using a very small part of the external work, but where the external work contains much more information about the subject. Those are all links that editors can, and will, follow when they want to know more about the subject. And as such, they have to, within reason, WP:IAR and such, follow the external links guidelines. They should NOT link to copyvios, they should be unique enough that they are not covered by other works already linked (we are not a linkfarm), they should actually tell stuff that is not in the article and can not be included. In any form, they are, disguised, external links sections. 'Further reading', 'General notes', 'External links' can be used to 'group' certain things together (I would, personally, use 'Further reading' for WP:RS material (e.g. peer reviewed overviews, reviews, etc.), 'External links' for e.g. other links which are not necesseraly WP:RS).

But I am not sure if this is the distinction you mean. What do you see as a footnote which is not intended to be a reference? - do you mean a 'more information can be found here' which is within ref-tags, where 'here' refers to a non-RS article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

External links essay nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Kumioko, who disagrees with the advice against Find-a-Grave links in the essay, has nominated it for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Since WhatamIdoing mentions Kumioko as an opponent to the essay - he nominated it for deletion - it also seems appropriate to mention that WhatamIdoing is a proponent thereof, and that he's in fact it's original author/creator, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Merchandising links

Could we add an extra line (or expand an existing one) to avoid sites that have a sole purpose of merchandising? There has been a brief problem at Scott Redding, where there were two official sites. Namely

1. www.scott-redding45.co.uk
2. www.scottredding45.com
   

It seems that No.1 was the official site, but was sold off by Scott under a contract to market all his promotional gear for the next 10 years. He then created No.2 to provide information on what he is currently doing to his fans.
I see no issue with No.2 - it's an official site written by the person of the article.
No.1 is the problem, the link was put in by an IP, who we later found out (after I protected the page) worked for the site in question (I know - COI!), and claim that their sole contract with Scott made them the official site. Since it's a site where the sole purpose is to sell items, then I say it should not linked from Wikipedia - but ELNO does not apply to official links - maybe we could add to WP:ELNEVER, to say that there should be no links to merchandising sites?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ELNEVER is really our collection of things handed down from on high, rather than absolute rules. As for making it a firm rule, I don't think that will work: What if the article is actually about a merchandising website?

ELNO #5 is your friend here, as is the definition of 'official' at WP:ELOFFICIAL: Our official-link exemption only applies to websites that are controlled by the subject of the article.

If it continues to be a problem, then you might leave a nice note at User talk:XLinkBot about the anon spamming in a sales link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Points noted should the IP resume editing (when the semi runs out)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about whether "solution stacks" that include an article's subject should be included as an EL

I reverted this edit and a few others on the basis that it's not about the subject just because there's a bundle that includes the web browser and it's against item 13 of ELNO: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". I would appreciate input at Talk:Nginx#Inclusion of external link to solution stack. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are links offsite from the body of an article permitted in this case or not?

It'll take some patience and willingness to examine details closely in order to follow this, but this language we currently have seems pretty confused and confusing to me:

( version A - the original version, timestamped 03:27, 11 March 2011 UTC )

Links normally to be avoided

19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article — unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.

If you hover over or click on the very last "[1]" in the foregoing you'll see that it's a direct link to an external site. That seems to imply that within the body of an article it's okay to link directly to an external site instead of doing so the usual way: by enclosing a url in ref tags or by using a cite template. But the above example has several things that make parsing its intended meaning harder than it has to be, so let's simplify:

First, (1) the use of quotation marks in this (second footnote) example confuses things a bit, so let's eliminate that ambiguity by introducing a snippet of an actual press release and then using quotation marks only for the press release's actual content. (2) Also, this example makes it too easy since we all know that if we have an article about an organization, that we can wikilink to it from the body of an article if it's relevant to do so. So let's choose some organization other than The Red Cross for our example. Incorporating these two items will give us,

( version B )

Links normally to be avoided

19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article — unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.

( Note: I've forced the very last displayed number above to "9", so it we can discuss it without confusing it with the other numbers. The auto-generated result would have defaulted to "1" otherwise. )

Now please click on or hover over the "9", above. Notice that it's a direct link to an offsite page, not a ref. Now here's the crux question: Is this example saying it's okay to introduce a direct link to an offsite page from within the body of an article when we're using the org as a source? Or is this just kind of "accidental", i.e. is it an artifact that arises because this illustration already occurs within a ref/footnote, and we can't have a "ref within a ref", if you follow me?

My guess is that it's "accidental", i.e. that we don't want direct links to offsite pages in our articles, if we can help it, since the first sentence of our policy page says as much.

So what is this example really trying to say? Does "Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source..." mean it's sometimes (?) okay to add a link for an organization's main page to an article's External links section when we've used that org as a source? That's my best guess, but I'm not sure. If it's intended to mean what I think it is, then I have a proposed change/clarification that I'll post here as "version C", but I don't want to do that until I'm sure we're all on the same page about what this is really trying to say. So can I get some input from all you friendly policy wonks on this, please? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If the URL leads to a page that actually supports the content of that sentence, then it is a (badly formatted) "ref" to a (hopefully reliable) source. For example, the article might be using the (IMO undesirable, but not actually banned) WP:ECITE citation system, or it might be a URL left by an inexperienced editor, who couldn't figure out how to format things otherwise.

The critical distinction between the two links in the example is that the first ("no") link goes to http://www.wombatawareness.com and does not support the content in that sentence, while the second ("yes") goes to a specific page at the website that (presumably) does support the content in that sentence.

The formatting of the link is irrelevant: If the URL supports article content, then it is not an external link, and it therefore is not within the remit of this guideline.

I fantasize on occasion about a section titled "Is this URL an external link?" with content like:

Does this URL WP:VERIFY some of the material in the article?

• If "yes": This URL is not an external link. This URL is a WP:CITE to a WP:RS. Please STOP reading this page. You are in the WRONG PLACE. This page has NOTHING TO DO with providing links to reliable sources.
• If "no": This URL is an external link. Please read this ENTIRE PAGE.

But it won't do: some people would get offended, and some still wouldn't be able to figure out that the external links guideline has nothing at all to do with links to reliable sources.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I fantasize about Esti Ginzburg. Maybe you need to get out more, dude. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)  ← jk lol

It has always seemed unfortunate to me that we named our External links section eponymously, the container for the contents. It makes it harder to talk intelligibly about the subject. I try to avoid the term for that reason, in favor of "links to offsite urls" or something like that. I do understand what you mean by your sentence, " If the URL supports article content, then it is not an external link..." but it seems (to me) pretty contrived to say that a link to an external url isn't an external link. But as I say, I understand why you want to make that distinction of terminology, even though I think it's a (very) high-force fit to use the description "external link" in that way. Also, I actually like the intention behind your fantasy. I was just offering some friendly teasing re "getting out more", of course.

But more substantively, I'm under the impression that what you're calling the WP:ECITE system is banned. I know newcomers use it, and if that's the best they know how to do, that's fine, until a more experienced editor comes along and (a) converts the url to a ref by enclosing it in ref tags or using a cite template, (b) moves it to the External links section if that's appropriate, or (c) deletes it entirely if that's the most appropriate action. So I disagree with "The critical distinction..." and "The formatting of the link is irrelevant..."

Anyway, here's something closer to what I'd like to see in our current policy statment, as being less ambiguous:

( version C )

Links normally to be avoided

19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article — unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.

Before putting this on the live policy page I'd clean it up considerably by choosing a site that has much (!) shorter URL paths and page names, but you get the idea, right? To encourage people to use refs instead of giving them the idea that they can use what you've referred to as a WP:ECITE. Still with me, or have I put you to sleep with this?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the current wording as it is not the business of this guideline to dictate how references should be formatted, and the simple example given is fine. The quotes might be removed, and perhaps put the ellipsis in quotes (said "..."), but why would any other change be useful? Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia ... but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." ( I find the "external links" literal in that sentence to be really extraneous. ) Our current version encourages direct links to external urls in the body of an article. Further, readers have the right to know that when they click on a link in the body of an article that they're not going be surprised by landing off-wiki. That's important to a lot of people re the potential for viruses, malware, etc. It's a different thing entirely if they're aware of that possibility because they're clicking on something in the External links section, or on something that appears as a footnote in the "References" section.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any encouragement in the text you're quoting, it says "should not".--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, KmhKmh, but I don't understand what you mean. I know the text says "should not normally", of course, but are you saying, for example, that "should not" means ... well, I guess I'm not sure what you believe that means about whether links like this[2] are permitted in the body of articles when they're used to support a claim or statement. Can you clarify?  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You've claimed our formulation would encourage adding such links, while in fact is discouraging the use (shouldn't not) without prohibiting them explicitly. So if your concern is simply a perceived encouragement, it is unfounded.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. You're right, Kmhkmh: I have claimed that. I've claimed that because, if you examine the links at the very end of my "verson A" or "version B", above, viz. the [1] or [9], respectively, you'll see that they both look and operate exactly like what user WhatamIdoing is calling ECITE links.

It's my impression that everyone here wants to discourage that, but we're providing an example that encourages it. That's why I put up "version C" for comment above, that uses sup and other markup tricks to make the "[9]" cite look like our preferred cite method, i.e. a url embedded between <ref> tags. Do you understand why I did that, and why I believe it's less likely to confuse users?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note: ECITE isn't banned. CITE permits any citation system, without exception: "Editors are free to use any method for inline citations; no method is recommended over any other."

It may be lousy, undesirable, prone to link rot, regularly misused, etc., but it is actually permitted, for better or worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the link rot issue is the same no matter whether you use a footnote or direct lin the text body using Harvard style or similar. However since our sources have a general issue to move online (since publications in general switch to an online mode), we can't do without it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you're very familiar with EL policy, WhatamIdoing, but I'm not seeing that. "Ecite" is, so far as I've seen, just an essay, not policy. And unless I'm missing something, it appears to me to be in direct conflict with "[external links] should not normally be used in the body of an article."

The disagreement comes from what I consider (no offence intended) your idiosyncratic definition of "External link". Above you wrote, "Does this URL WP:VERIFY some of the material in the article? If "yes", this URL is not an external link." I take exception to that. It's my impression that an "external link" is just a link to an external page, as opposed to an internal link (a wikilink). If a user clicks on a link and it takes him offsite, that makes it an external link, in my opinion. Is there some thread consensus or policy statement that supports your desired definition that I'm not aware of?

I make such a point of this because my understanding is that our "no external links in the body of an article" policy exists, in part, to provide assurance to our readers that they won't unexpectedly "land" offsite by clicking on a reference that occurs in the body of an article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And as long as I'm taking friendly exception here, I'll also have to take exception to your italicized stress on the word "any" in the sentence "Editors are free to use any method for inline citations..." That word "any" can't possibly be interpreted literally: It means "any permitted method", surely. I don't imagine I'd get very far, for example, if I were to decide to start using asterisks, one for a first ref^*, two for the second^**, and so on, and placing the text corresponding to each in a section on the page I'd created with the name, "Footnotes added from John Smith's books". Nor would it be allowed if I felt compelled to set off all my parenthetical cites with {{ }} double braces.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotation above is from WP:CITE, the main guideline for citing sources. And yes, any is the right answer. CITE has absolutely and resolutely declined to join the holy war about citation systems. Any system is acceptable, including systems that the editor makes up out of thin air. A series of asterisks is perfectly acceptable under CITE. Hand-numbered footnotes are also acceptable. I've had it in mind to someday use traditional footnote markings (asterisk, dagger, double dagger, section, etc.) if I start some permastub. All of these have disadvantages, and I would argue against them, but it's a change that would have to be made with a consensus of editors at the article, not something you can demand per some non-existent policy. (CITE is only a guideline.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, OhioStandard - "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." .. if they are in the body of the article, and are not there to support the content of the article, but are plainly a link to a (related) subject, then they are external links - you example 'No' is an external link in that sense, example 'Yes' is a reference (though not strictly formatted as such). - even while that part itself is inside a reference, that type of information is 'body' type text (for formatting as link 1).

One can wikilawyer then that it is inside a reference, and hence would not be part of this guideline, but that will then soon be an argument that will be abused by spammers. I am, and will, change every sentence that is formatted as <ref>As mentioned in this [http://example.com/document document] that is provided by [http://example.com companyname]</ref> to <ref>As mentioned in this [http://example.com/document] that is provided by [[companyname]]</ref> - the former is (meant to be) used as to support the sentence the ref is hanging on, the latter is not (and often spammy, even when the statement is appropriate). So if an external link is not pointing to a document that is supporting the content it is 'hanging on', it is an external link, and if it is merely to link to the entity but not as a support, then it is an external link in the sense of this guideline. Note, that the external links in 'The [http://example.com/product] was developed by [http://example.com company X]' are both not supporting the sentence, they are not a suitable source for the fact that the product is developed by company X, nor does it give notability to that fact, and I would, in most cases, convert that sentence where maybe I would use the example.com/product-link as a (primary) reference, but then properly formatted so it is recognisable as a reference. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "external link" is wikijargon now. It means "external link as defined by this guideline", rather than whatever the plain English definition is. All URLs in article space either directly support article content (in which case, go to RS and CITE and ignore EL) or do not directly support article content (in which case, ignore RS and CITE and go to EL). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk, for the quotation; I'd missed that somehow. And thanks, too, WhatamIdoing; I didn't realize I'd stepped off the train into the middle of a holy war. I'll have to pause and reflect. ;-) I certainly don't want to stir up anything like that, it's just that articles like xkcd hurt my brain. But speaking very practically for a moment, are any of you poised to scream "bloody murder" or open an RfC into my subversive conduct if I edit our example to

• change the depiction of the "yes footnote" from this[9] style to something like the following,

• Yes: The Wombat Awareness Organization issued a press release saying "Bob Irwin's new home is called..."^[9]
  where clicking on the "9" takes the user to a references section entry that points here.

This really is a very minor change that would nevertheless be much less likely to confuse and, as a bonus, would also be more in keeping with what everyone here says they want to encourage anyway. And if any editor has an issue with wombats, I'd be happy to try to find a more neutral example. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the change Ohiostandard proposed immediately above. On another point, the What information to include section of the Citing sources guideline shows what information a citation normally should contain, regardless of the style. Since just giving the URL of the source falls far short of the information that normally should be provided, I would say that ECITEs are effectively banned. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bless you, Jc3s5h, for your dedication in examining a long thread carefully. I'm impressed and grateful!  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to just clarify that I don't think what we're calling ECITEs should be deleted or reverted. If they're the best a new user can do, then so be it; I suppose any form of cite is better than none. But I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn't formally allow or encourage their use in any way, either.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, and since ECITE does not provide only the URL in the body of the article, then it is not "effectively banned". Jc3s5h will need to go read WP:ECITE to find out what a proper rendition of it entails. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Patient information boxes

People here might like to look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Patient_information_boxes, a proposal to add a special box of patient-oriented external links to medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Answers.com and WiseGEEK.com

(As suggested by DreamGuy, I've moved my question to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:ELN)

Are Answers.com and WiseGEEK ever acceptable as references or external links? Two concerns:

1) Answers.com and WiseGEEK.com are under less strict review than Wikipedia is. If that is the case in all situations, then quoting either tends to degrade the quality of Wiki articles. I just encountered an example of the problem caused to Wikipedia, in editing Walrus moustache[3]. The article as it stood seemed to be a combination of common knowledge, original research, essay language and peacock. The WiseGEEK article was written by one person, giving no credentials for himself; there were no references.

2) The Answers.com reference appears to be a cut-and-paste of the Wikipedia article (including the reference to Answers.com itself).

If both sites are always forbidden -- or at the least strongly discouraged -- should they be explicitly named in "Links normally to be avoided", point 11? (Answers.com returns 46,000 entries in Wiki search results. WiseGEEK 450.)

A special problem here is how much these sources "compete" with Wikipedia in search results, and that casual editors may mistake them as reliable, when in fact they may be less reliable than Wikipedia. Thoughts? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This question is more appropriate for the External links noticeboard, but the quick answer is no, they are not usable as reliable sources or external links. We don't normally name specific sites on the lists, as we expect optimistically that it shouldn't be necessary most of the time. Both link counts you provide are quite troubling, assuming they are in article space. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move the discussion there. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion that was moved has been archived, so this may be the best place for further comment. Apart DreamGuy's comment, and a similar comment I read by another editor (in an Edit Summary?) making similar points, there has been no contrary feedback. I added notification that I was removing WiseGEEK references. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to amend policy

I have been informed by another editor that the following use of external links is totally unacceptable:

Penal Servitude was abolished for Scotland by section 16(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 on 12 June 1950.

See section 221 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and section 307(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

In all fairness, I cannot see anything wrong with them at all, or any reason why they should not be left as they are. I appreciate that others may think differently. Could we please consider altering WP:EL in such a way that links like the ones above would comply with it. James500 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont see why we need to change the guideline it has long been established that external links should not normally be used in the body of an article. In the example you give the external links should really be removed but they can be reformated as references. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the fact that a guideline has been around for a long time (inertia?) is a reason to continue with it. I do not find the reasons that have been offerred for this particular guideline to be convincing. James500 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do we want those links in the body of the article? How does Wikipedia benefit from sending readers away, to some other website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the question of how does wikipedia benefit from this:IIRC, wikipedia is registered and/or incorporated as a charity and charities exist for the public benefit rather than their own, so I suggest that is either irrelevant or a secondary consideration. James500 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Imho it might be somewhat pointless to start a fight over that. If your primary goal is to cite the paragraph and provide online access to it, you can do that using references (<ref> </ref> ).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Scattering external links through an article has several problems: it's ugly; it can mislead readers who might think they can read another Wikipedia article at the link; it directs readers away from Wikipedia; it avoids the need to develop the article because the external link covers the issue. However, the main reason that embedded external links cannot be condoned is the spam and promotion problem: if it's ok to link to sections of legislation because a legal reader might occasionally find it convenient, why not link to videos showing a person mentioned in an article, or why not link to each person's and each organization's website? As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit we have to acknowledge that we cannot open up articles to a proliferation of external links. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The links above are not ugly. I cannot accept that a reader could imagine that they point at a wikipedia article because they are a different colour to internal links and they have an arrow on the end which internal links don't. As to the question of developing articles: what if there is no prospect of the article being properly developed in the near future, not because it isn't notable and shouldn't be, but because we do not have enough editors who interested in doing it in order to do it? As to the question of promotion: I can only suggest that linking to a database of legislation is not promotion (assuming that I haven't misunderstood that term) and is something completely different. I don't think that the National Archives is "promoting" anything. As to "promoting" them: is there another database of legislation that I don't know about? And is that not a separate issue as to where the links should go in the article?James500 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify why you are suggesting that putting external links in the body of an article is spam, but putting them in footnotes is not. What is the difference?James500 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too worried about the WP:Spam event horizon in this particular situation. But I'm just not sure what value this provides to the typical reader, and I see the harm in sending readers away before they've even finished reading the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As to sending readers away: what if the National Archives has better stuff on this than we do or have any immediate prospect of getting? And is that not a separate issue as to where the links should go in the article? Another consideration might be that, when I (or someone else) am extending or revising what I have written, these links allow me (or that person) to get at the sources more quickly than running a search of the database, which speeds up content creation.James500 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are very few teams of equal peers on the Internet. Most websites, including Wikipedia, mainly follow an Amazon.com-like hierarchy. (Being non-profit does not preclude monopolistic intentions. It just means that the Wikimedia foundation won't profit from them its self.) If the British government wants to be linked to by Wikipedia, it will be on Wikipedia's terms, irrespective of whom has the better stuff. For example, the legislative branch of the British government does have the option of becoming a Wiki. Select interwiki links can appear in the article body with the Wikipedia links. BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about whether the British government wants to be linked by wikipedia. This is about whether the readers of wikipedia want to read the relevant piece of legislation that wikipedia does not publish. I never said that I thought it was a waste of time to copy those provisons, merely that it would be a waste of time to move those links to a footnote. And is that relevant to the question of whether the source link goes in the body of the text or in a footnote, since it will presumably be one or the other?James500 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not a web directory. That's not what we do. If you are concerned about there being a good bunch of links to valuable sites out there for people to use, you can always join Open Directory, since that is what they do. Wikipedia cannot be everything to everyone. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I really think that you are getting off subject. The question was: should these source links be left in the body of the text where they are doing no harm, or should I waste time turning them into footnotes per WP:EL because someone has decreed that all external links that are used as sources must be put in footnotes because they prefer footnotes?James500 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is a public charity. However, the English Wikipedia is not: it is a website (owned by WMF) and a community of people that benefits from keeping both readers and editors on this website as much as possible. That's one reason that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of links to other websites.

Question for whatamidoing: Wikipedia is suppossed to be assembled from other sources. How does wikipedia benefit from making it more difficult for editors to get information to put on wikipedia?James500 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue for me is placement: Do we want to send readers away before they've finished reading the article? I don't think that such a choice is good for them or for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting it in a footnote will not stop readers from leaving the article before they have finished reading it. They will just click on the link to footnote. I know this, because that is what I do when I am reading an article, if I want to look at the sources. James500 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The links shown as examples at the beginning of this thread are being used as citations. The External links guideline does not apply to citations. Thus this matter must be discussed at WT:CITE and any conclusion formed here is invalid because the discussion did not occur in the correct forum. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking as a reference is also much more meaningful in a print version. I see no advantage to leaving a link in a body when any reader actually interested in the source material will naturally click on the superscript to get to the footnote. I would not support an amendment to modify the guideline, particularly not for the sake of a single article. If an editor wishes to ignore the guideline that's the sort of case to make on the talk page of the article itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, you are assuming that these are definitely citations to reliable sources that support article content. I do not think that is necessarily the case. Consider the example sentence:

Penal Servitude was abolished for Scotland by section 16(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 on 12 June 1950.

Do you see anything in the link that gives the date that penal servitude was abolished? Do you see anything that shows that it was not abolished before then? (Many laws are repetitive.) So we may be looking at a poorly located external link, rather than a reliable source (that is, an unreliable source, since it doesn't actually include the information it would need to support).

Also, results matter more than process. If editors here come to the right conclusion, then the conclusion is not invalidated because of the name at the top of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The location of the link indicates that the source only supports the claim that penal servitude was abolished for Scotland. If the editor who wrote the statement though the source also supported the date, the link would have been placed at the end of the sentence.

• I do apologise. The date was from this source: section 221 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975James500 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason any result reached here is invalid is that those interested in the citation guideline are not necessarily aware of this discussion, and are deprived of an opportunity to express their views. It is like a New York City government agency announcing an open meeting in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO both of your assumptions are false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no proposal on the table to regulate citations in this guideline, your disagreement with my position that this is an unacceptable forum for such a discussion is of no immediate consequence. As for whether the link in the example is a citation, it certainly is, because it supports the statement that penal servitude has been abolished in Scotland. The fact that it does not support the date of abolishment just makes it an imperfect citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

When to link to open wikis

The policy says that links to be avoided include "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." How can one determine if an open wiki has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors? Jwissick wishes to add this page on the SMRT wiki to the EL section of the Ray Comfort article. How do we determine if this is appropriate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that particular SMRT wiki page one big BLP violation from our perspective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If so, then in which cases can open wikis be placed in the EL section? Personally I was surprised that the policy said that they could be placed there at all. Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to know the answer to that too. The criteria, stability and editor numbers, seem odd ones to pick. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The criteria are chosen to minimize the effects of poor maintenance: A stable, large open wiki is much more likely to notice and repair serious vandalism.

NB that meeting this criteria isn't sufficient. Links must meet all of the criteria. If an open wiki is large and stable, then you shouldn't remove it simply for being an open wiki. You could still remove it for (e.g.,) objectionable amounts of advertising, irrelevance, POV pushing, not having unique content, misleading information, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the assessment of number of editors and stability needs to judged from context. Wikis on specialized subjects naturally have a smaller number of authors, but that doesn't necessarily a lack of quality of their content (which should be the primary reason for having them under external links in the first place). Also you may need to distinguish between linking a particular article of a Wiki and the Wiki's main page itsself. If the entry in external links links to an article which is of high quality and somewhat stable, I probably wouldn't remove it, even if the wiki it belongs to is not that big (treat it like a good (uncontroversial) article on a private website). However if the link is to the main page of some wiki, then I'd probably expect a larger wiki. To give somen examples of a "wikis" that are linked quite often in WP and which imho are quite useful: Citizendium, PlanetMath. Those are rather large though on more specialized subjects much smaller wikis might still be acceptable (and useful to readers).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I know that the site in question is undeniably unacceptable, not only for the blatant POV pushing and BLP violations, but if you look at their recent changes log, the last 500 edits consist only of new accounts, those accounts creating promotional accounts, and then the accounts being blocked and the pages being deleted. Looking at their main page, they appear to have approximately 20 articles in total. So they fail even the most minimal standards. But, in generally, my feeling is that we should link to very few open wikis, and the criteria essentially imply that with the terms "stable, large, and open." The only ones I can think of seeing that remain consistently are imdb and Wookieepedia (plus those that are part of the family like Wikitravel and Wikiquote). Very few Wikis can meet "Links to be considered" point 3, namely "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Plus, look at ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." imdb and Wookiepedia meet that by virtue of the depth of information they provide about subjects. But very few other wikis will.

And responding the the Kmhkmh's post I conflicted with: I wouldn't accept a "good (uncontroversial) article on a private website" as an external link, either. We really want to have a very small number of only the best links, I think. Just because some other article is informative doesn't mean it's likely that it should be linked. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I would and in fact I often do, but it really depends on the context. Of course shouldn't any link that potentially qualifies be linked as we dont cite any eligibled existing source for some content either. But we pick a (temporary) selection, the links of which can be replaced by better ones when they become available. In other words your argument applies to articles having already (more than) enough external links, adding there yet another link just because it might pass WP:EL is of course not a good idea. However it is different if an article has only a very few or no external links yet. Adding no links in such cases because theoretically they might not be the best out there is not a good approach either. Nor is it removing links that arguably qualify in such a case. For instance in math or basic science articles I quite often link private websites of teachers/professors/students provided they have an appropriate and correct treatment of the article's subject and additional information and the WP article still lacks external links. In an article on some math theorem they might provide lucid alternative descriptions, proofs of the theorem, examples and applications. And as a Wiki in that area I often link to according articles in PlanetMath.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well WP:Elno#1 is to be used with care and discretion (see archived discussions), meaning in practice we (=many editors) tolerate links violating strictly speaking violate WP:Elno#1 as long as they provide important/useful/significant information beyond the current article (rather than an unknown future featured one). In the context of Wikis one probably should consider WP:ELMAYBE#4 (which is somewhat contradicting WP:Elno#1 anyhow).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor point: Wikitravel isn't "part of the family". See WP:SISTER for the list of actual family members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, how do you feel we can determine whether a site meets the criteria you mentioned? Do you agree with Qwyrxian's method of looking at the recent changes log, or do you propose other ways to do this? Do you agree with him that SMRT is not appropriate?

To the rest (excepting Qwyrxian, who already expressed his view on this), do you feel the SMRT page on Ray Comfort is an appropriate addition to Wikipedia's article on him? Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, though as seen above I'm more on the "pro side" as far as linking various wikis are concerned, I'd definitely would not link this one and most likely remove it if i came across such a case. First of all this wiki seems super small, the linked article is of a (potentially) controversial nature and we have to consider WP:BLP, so it kinda fails on those 3 considerations, hence it should not be added under external links.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me jump in here as well. General, articles on external wikis are unstable - that is even true for Wikipedia, we have occasionally pages with unnoticed vandalism which sometimes stays for a long, long time. However, if the wiki is of significant size, than those effects are not too big, and it stays occasional. Depending on the wiki, but very often: most of the data that is on the external wiki can also be incorporated in Wikipedia (if it can be properly referenced - but if the external wiki is not significantly referenced, then how do we know what they say is true; it may be a specialists wiki there, but often if it is so open that every N00b can join in, even when an admin has to provide access). And then think that often, much of the info on the external wiki is also available in many other places on the internet (and sometimes already covered in the article itself + the other external links on our pages) - many wikis do not contain unique content. And also take into account the occasional copyvio, COI. Linking to pages on an external wiki needs quite a bit of common sense there, and IMHO, external wikis very often simply fail the basis of why we would want to link externally (even for more stable wikis!!). But still - there are enough examples to be found of cases which are certainly a good addition.

Of course, when the link is to an external wiki which is the subject of the page here on Wikipedia, then it should even be linked, even if the external wiki is unstable etc. (but notable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Small point but "if the wiki is of significant size, then those effects are not too big" assumes that the effects of things like vandalism and factual errors etc grow at a different rate than a wiki. There's no reason to assume that is there and it seems unlikely to be the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you can avoid all those vandalism and temporarily deteriorations issues issue with most Wikis if you simply use a permanent link (as long as your are planning to link a specific article of the Wiki rather than just its main page). In addition many readers might be capable of recovering an non vandalized version from the article's history as well. So I don't think we need to get overly worried here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a hard rule, but if a wiki has a significant number of users based around the world, then vandalism generally gets noticed reasonably fast, whereas the size of a wiki is not necessarily a reason of getting more vandalism (quite some time ago, when we had the small wikis of relatively small languages and not much monitoring going on, these language-wikis had quite some spamming going on which sometimes stayed for long times. And a lot of Cross-Wiki spamming does not start on en.wikipedia (some don't even hit the top 10) - the more sophisticated spammers know that big wikis gets them noticed too fast). Of course, that goes all ways, there are properly kept very small wikis where there is a dedicated admin who checks 2-3 times a day ALL edits made and removes all vandalism, whereas, as I said, even Wikipedia sometimes has pages with vandalism laying around unnoticed for months, sometimes even longer - I recall a case of several years, noticed a couple of months ago). It is a WP:ELNO rule based on a general observation, where there are always exceptions, and that is why WP:IAR can and should be applied there.

Good point, Kmhkmh - Problem is that hardly EVER anyone links in that way to an external wiki, and it would/should/could/may then also 'require' maintenance (if there is a (significant) improvement of the external page, one could/should/may consider to link to a newer revid). Regarding 'many readers might be capable of recovering a non vandalized version' - some vandalism is so subtle that one does not notice (if I change the boiling point of water to 50 degrees Centigrade in the article, people might notice .. but of which other liquids do you know the boiling point by heart?) - and seen that there are here sometimes new editors who have NO clue even after having been explained/warned over and over. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding BLP's, I have seen that editors with strong opinions often want to include external links just so they can get the name of the link as part of the article. Here we have the word Lies which jumps out at you even if not bolded. It is clearly an attack site and self-disqualifies for a living biography. If a reputable source were to examine the claims made, that would be a different thing. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As per Rumiton. The EL is clearly an attack article against a living person on an open wiki. It and similar externals on BLP articles should be removed on sight. As regards the bigger picture, some wikipedias are fine for adding to EL sections, open a discussion for evaluation on the talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To Space or Not to Space?

In this section HERE, where it shows an example of how to display External links, well... does there need to be a space between the Asterisk and the [http://... part? I have created/edited a few external links sections on Wikipedia and don't seem to use them anymore when I realised that the links work without a space and for the fact that not everyone seems to use them much. Now that I have found this article, I wonder if I should indeed restore those spaces on the links I have edited or should we edit the section mention at the top of my post and remove the spaces? Unless there is a good reason we need them?

I know this seems lame but you never know... AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spaces after the asterisk are unnecessary, harmless, and common. Both of these produce the same outcome:

* [http://example.com
*[http://example.com 

You can use either, or both, or even multiple spaces after the asterisk. There is no technical reason to be consistent within the same list, although generally speaking, people try to match whichever style the article is already using, because it's easier to read in the edit box that way.

On help pages and in guidelines like this, we provide a space to make it easier for people to see the individual elements.

(NB: No spaces before the asterisk, and no blank lines between list items!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thankyou guys, I understand now! AnimatedZebra (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Amend Policy for Journalists

I raise the proposal of allowing links to verified Twitter accounts in the External Links sections of journalists Wikipedia biography page. I understand that Wikipedia:ELNO is an established policy but the idea came to me when I was looking for the Twitter accounts of a few national journalists and thought to go to their Wikipedia biography pages when I was not easily able to find links to their twitter accounts on their employer's website. I would compare this idea to movie pages that tend to link to the movie's official website, an IMDB page and, a Rotten Tomatoes page as I know that a {{twitter}} template already exists. I believe this is a good idea that can be useful for readers and if discussed fully could be implemented effectively. I have also begun a similar discussion at Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter to see if anyone agrees with the idea of placing a Twitter account parameter on journalist infobox's. Thanks. --Flyguy33 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it is not Wikipedia's role to provide a convenient set of "click here" links. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I realize that Wikipedia is not a directory, but in today's world, more and more journalists are maintaining individual Twitter accounts that they connect to their professions and employers and are using them to report news. I personally believe that links to verified Twitter accounts for journalists will be useful to readers, the essential function of an encyclopedia is to provide useful information to readers. A {{twitter}} template already exists, so now I simply propose amending Wikipedia:ELNO for journalists. I generally agree with Wikipedia:ELNO as I don't believe that links to celebrity and corporate PR Twitter accounts are necessary or useful on Wikipedia, but I argue that they are useful for journalists as this is becoming a way to disseminate news to the public. Thanks. --Flyguy33 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As I already said to you, there is no blanket prohibition on adding Twitter accounts to external links sections under ELNO: we even have a template for that precise purpose. I suggest that rather than continuing to shop around you take this to talk:Chuck Todd and discuss it with the editor who reverted your edit in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I will raise the point on talk:Chuck Todd, but I was looking here to see if there was any interest in amending Wikipedia:ELNO as I believe that linking to Twitter accounts of journalists is useful for the general public. Thanks. --Flyguy33 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If the link cannot be readily found from their primary official website (as you suggest above), then you can include a link to their Twitter feed under the existing guideline, without the need to write in a special exception. If it is prominently linked from their official site, then a separate link isn't needed. Presumably there will be some marginal cases that require discussion (since what constitutes "prominently linked" is somewhat subjective), but overall the existing guideline allows for a variety of situations. --RL0919 (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if a link cannot easily be found then adding a link works well, however, I'm proposing tweaking the policy to encourage everyone to add links to journalists verified Twitter accounts, if the journalist actively uses Twitter to report news, because of the nature of how so many journalists, especially political, foreign, and sports reports, are now using Twitter to report the news. Thanks. --Flyguy33 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps non-intuitively, if they are using Twitter that actively, the guidance is to not include it on the journalists' pages. Why? It would be prominent on journalist's web home page/main presence, probably with a giant "Follow me on Twitter!" badge. WP:ELOFFICIAL and the section on minimizing the number of links says, in a case like that, to link only to the main page and not the Twitter feed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO the fundamental problems with Twitter is the same fundamental problem with blogs: What looks like good material today could be stale, unimportant, or irrelevant tomorrow. Consequently, I think this needs to be decided case-by-case, with the default answer being "no". If you've got good reasons for linking it at a given article, then the other editors there will very likely agree with you to make an exception. Otherwise—no.

(And the idea of having to decide who is "really" a journalist makes me want to curl up in a ball and whimper.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And conveniently, this is precisely the spirit of the current wording of the guideline (and of {{twitter}}'s documentation). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with RL0919 and C.Fred. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, links to twitter feeds are permitted in any Tom, Dick, or Harry's article, but might not be necessary. Whether one is a journalist or not is irrelevant. If we wished to be selective about whom ELOFFICIAL applied to, then we would need to modify policy. BitterGrey (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding policy being what it is does not mean things can't change and adapt. I raised this point because I think it is important for readers be able to find out the Twitter name of journalists because so many journalists are reporting the news through their Twitter feeds. I'm not suggesting links to one specific tweet are good, because they are generally not, but links to an account a journalist maintains are very useful. Additionally, the idea that it is easy to find the Twitter feed on the official website for many of these journalists is not true across the board. Many of the media companies that employ these journalists still struggle with how to promote their employee's twitter use. Personally, I think it is important to link to the twitter feed of a journalist in the same way that we link to the homepage of a newspaper, the newspaper reports the news on its homepage, the journalist reports the news on his/her Twitter feed. I personally think its time to set a new precedent and begin encouraging editor to include verified or positively confirmed Twitter feeds that the journalist maintains for the purpose of reporting the news. Thanks. --Flyguy33 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Also, those of you interested in this discussion will probably be interested in a similar discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter.

There is no need to amend, and I would certainly not encourage Twitter for a specific group of subjects. First of all, the Twitter of a journalist does not provide more info about the journalist (but about his current work - their last feed may be more appropriate on an unfolding news item!); some journalists may use twitter purely professional, but not all of them; and we are not the yellow pages for finding the twitter of a journalist (need it, go via their homepage, Google it, or find it via Twitter itself - Wikipedia is not intended to be a replacement for other search options). Moreover, if the journalist is so prominently using twitter, then their official page, or their official page on the pages of the organisation they work for will link the Twitter prominently. And what is next .. twitters of artists - there are surely artists who use their twitter purely professional (and not like most, where the feed is largely contaminated with not-to-the-point output). In short: there where the Twitter-feed is proper, WP:IAR does the trick, for the rest (even for a lot of journalists) the twitter should be discouraged on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dirk Beetstra's comment. A comparison to MySpace: In editing, where I've kept MySpace external links, it's mostly when there is no other official page. Other situations where MySpace is legitimate are much rarer. However, there is a difference here that is more prejudicial against Twitter. MySpace pages often enough have advertisements, a list of upcoming tour dates; neither weigh in MySpace's favor. But Twitter doesn't necessarily even reach that standard. It's not just that the information quickly becomes stale, as brought up by WhatamIdoing, but that much of Twitter is not encyclopedic, not necessarily true, and not necessarily even relevant. If Twitter is used by someone notable as a MySpace equivalent, because they do not have another way to present themself on the Internet ... well and good. If a Wiki link is being primarily used as an inducement to read an ever-changing social site, then it's promotional. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Journalists' twitter reporting is increasingly treated as significant in reliable news sources. Thus I just added a link to twitter for the first time at Wissam Tarif. A Google News search showed that NYT, WSJ, UPI, etc., all discussed what Tarif was tweeting (which also served the function of confirming that this is in fact Tarif's official and public Twitter stream). Under such circumstances, it meets EL guidelines as well as a link to a notable blogger's blog, official web page, etc. Wareh (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid EL per WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I fail to see its relevance to this discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Specification needed

Item 4 ("Links normally to be avoided") says that should be avoided: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." Does this rule mean only web pages or whole web-sites? Link spammers can place separate pages of commercial web-sites without direct sale or advertisement, but with clear intention to promote the whole site.Ans-mo (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it primarily applies to exact page you've linked. If you find a very illuminating & interesting article on a mobile provider's website, the deep link of which is without a commcercial character (no popup, frames and all the crap from the site itself) then you may provide that deep link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we care about the individual page that is being linked. Most readers will only look at the one page anyway, so advertisements elsewhere can't irritate them.

We might take a harder line against a WP:SPAMMER, but in general, you only need to consider the single page, not the whole website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea is clear, but in that case what should be done to prevent any services or products provider from indirect promotion of own site through relevant WP articles? Some articles could become catalogs of indirect commercial links.Ans-mo (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what problem you envision here. That someone adds a link to a good page on an otherwise commercial website? That someone spams links into thousands articles? That someone commits WP:REFSPAM? That an individual article approaches the WP:Spam event horizon? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean, that in any article about any product some providers could place their pages without direct advertisement, but with clear intention to indirectly promote that product. There is an example : Translation Memory eXchange article and its section "Third party tools". I removed (maybe mistakenly) all the commercial sites from it, though some presented pages of commercial sites did not contain direct advertisement. Otherwise such articles could become commercial catalogs for products (direct or indirect) promotion.Ans-mo (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't really care what the commercial site's goal is. We care whether a link helps our readers. If a page that sells the product helps our readers better than a page that doesn't sell the product, then we pick the "help our readers better" page. Wikipedia is not a business-free zone. We do not discriminate in favor of non-profit websites or against for-profit websites. We care whether links are useful and appropriate to our readers, with zero consideration for how the link might affect the organization that owns the website. They make a million dollars? Fine. The website dies under a Wikipedia-driven Slashdot effect? Fine. They have to suddenly buy more bandwidth? Fine. We just don't care what happens to them. It is, quite literally, none of our business.

In this instance, I'd remove (or possibly reformat as proper bibliographic citations) all of the links, because external links do not belong in the body article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Companies definitely use their technical pages as an excuse to link from Wikipedia. Some of those pages are transparent 50 word "throw aways" perhaps designed to attract search engines, while others are detailed masterpieces of information with illustrations and photos on arcane subjects. Some have information that might not be available elsewhere. Combine the authoratative writing with more imagery than many Wikipedia articles are graced with? Sometimes those commercial site pages are treasures. Where I have drawn the line, even with an page that is otherwise excellent, is when the company uses language that in Wiki would be considered WP:BIAS, for example, "Company X's product is the finest on market to solve this problem." ELNO Checking (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to amend policy on blogs

Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #11 ("Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority") seems to conflate blogs with personal journals. Blogs designed to discuss a particular subject should be included with their subject's Wikipedia article as an external link, even if the blogger has a commercial interest or accepts advertising. Linking an article about a baseball team to an individual fan's blog should normally be avoided, agreed. But an external link that provides more depth about a subject is useful to a reader. For example, if a reader is looking for information about Los Gatos, California because they might relocate there, wouldn't an external link to a knowledgeable blog about the town be useful to that reader? Not an individual's blog, but one dead-centered on the topic, such as Live in Los Gatos.com. This blog has 600 entries, most of which are not about real estate, that offer value to someone looking for knowledge about the Town of Los Gatos that would not be appropriate in the article. The author is a local realtor, but the information stands inspection. The realtor, Mary Pope-Handy, is a recognized authority in Los Gatos but not, perhaps, in Wikipedia terms. The policy should be amended as follows:

11. Links to personal blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for personal blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) Blogs focused exclusively on the article's subject, with a substantial history of stability, may be included in the external links.

Adallas (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not support the proposal because it would open the door for all sorts of unhelpful arguments by making it sound as if an external link to any blog that focuses on the subject should be included. Given that anyone can edit, we see SPA editors adding links everyday and the only way to keep things under control is to require that each external link be justified in terms of advancing the aims of the article (and not providing a directory of relevant blogs). Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - we link to wikitravel and dmoz pages which can contain those types of links. Mary Pope-Handy does not have a Wikipedia article so she doesn't seem to meet our notability criteria yet, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't necessarily link to Wikitravel, which has no connection to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. But we have a {{Wikitravel}} template which is used frequently enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Blogs are links normally to be avoided. There may be exceptions where a blog is exceptionally stable and provides excellent resources to the reader. In those cases, it will be obvious that the blog should be listed—or, if it's not obvious, discussion at the talk page would lead to the decision to include the blog as a link. There's no need to codify that practice. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons we discourage blogs is that—by their very nature—their contents change. So imagine that I see the blog today, and it's on-topic and looks valuable, so I add the link. Some time later, when the reader looks at it, the blog may be abandoned, or have changed its focus, or have a completely irrelevant posting on top.

The result is that links to blogs have a higher risk (compared to regular web pages) that our readers will get sent to something unhelpful, off-topic or irrelevant.

With the example you give, it's (barely) possible that such a link would be accepted by the editors at the article. Blogs are listed as something to normally avoid, rather than to always avoid; editors are allowed to use their best judgment if the link is otherwise highly appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen and removed dozens of similar real-estate blogs. While the idea that some expert blogs may be appropriate has merit, realtors have specific commercial conflicts of interest and wish to promote themselves in their communities. They are inevitably going to promote their neighborhoods and suppress negative information, so they are not impartial or neutral experts, and the information they do provide is suspect.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wouldn't use it as a reference and generally don't use them as external links. See: WP:BLOGS as well. I think blogs are taken on a case-by-case basis with the editors on that page. Usually if it is official to the subject in the article or a recognized authority of some sort. In general though, the current policy is good. Any changes could create unnecessary problems and discussions.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - No, any blog is discouraged, whether personal, whether general, whatever. They are still what they are, blogs, personal thoughts without editorial oversight. Note, we are talking about a guideline here, and we are talking about WP:ELNO-rules here. We do not link to things because they are about the same subject (note: we are not a linkfarm), we are linking to things if they add to the page something that is not there or likely can not be included, and when that is not covered by other ('better') external links. Blogs generally fail that, the information often can be included, it is not stable, often not reliable, and often tend to be 'contaminated' by comments from others. Sure, there are exceptions, but as I said, this is a guideline and you are talking about a part of WP:ELNO - there is always WP:IAR. But generally, there is no need to even give the feeling that we would 'encourage' linking to external sites. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• neutral. I don't quite see what the improvement is here (other than offerring more leeway for blogs we usually don't want). The necessary exceptions for blogs we may want are already possible under the current guideline. Two more comments however on subjects mentioned above. Wikitravel doesn't have to be linked but can be linked by the explicit wiki rule we have (large, somewhat stable wikis of interest for reader may be linked). As far as stability is concerned, many longrunning blogs are not unstable if they run an archive, they simply change their frontpage, however if you think in an exceptional case there is a particular interesing/useful blog entry being of interest to readers, you can consider simply linking the (stable) archived version. An example for such a case could be some notable expert publishing some illuminating essay or information on the article's subject (say one of the blogging Fields Medal winners publishes a nice lucid proof for some math theorem. Note our math articles usually don't contain proof but just references where the proof can be found).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - for reasons stated above. ELNO #11 would benefit from a clearer separation of the two concerns (A:the transient nature of blogs, B:the accuracy and centrality of websites representing a singular voice), but this change doesn't address that. BitterGrey (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - for reasons stated above. Also for the editorial review burden blogs place on Wikipedia editors. If I personally was a blogger whose link was deleted, but was determined to get my link into Wikipedia, I would rewrite the blog addressing whatever particular issues the "deleting editor" chose to identify. If confronted again, I would challenge the Wiki editor, extract snippets from WP:ELNO and other Wiki sources, give counterexamples from Featured Articles, and ask for second opinions. Hypothesizing that I had a significant stake in publicizing, I'd be willing to invest considerable effort, knowing there's a chance I can just argue my case to a standstill. Wikipedia should avoid guidelines so ambiguous they promote dissent. The burden should be strongly on those claiming a particular blog is an exception to guidelines. ELNO Checking (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Question of why message boards are not allowed

Am I correct in understanding that this is the correct section for discussing policies? If I'm incorrect, please don't hesitate to remove this.

My question is in reference to the policy of forbidding message boards from EL. I can understand a direct link to a thread not being allowed, but many times, a message board is very similar to an op-ed newspaper (but with multiple sources). From my experience, many newspapers are closing or struggling, as they are now competing with message boards that are able to produce information 24/7, and with actual discussion with witnesses, victims, etc.

I also saw where message boards were commonly in EL in 2009 or so (via archive.org), so I'm assuming that this was a more recent change in policy. Can anyone point me to, or explain, what prompted this change? Jason W. Carlton (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The biggest objections to linking to message boards is that they fail as verifiable and reliable sources; it is impossible to double-check their content, and that makes them unsuitable to build encyclopedic content on. — Edokter (talk) — 10:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That has no bearing here; EL is not convered with a link being a RS, othewwise this page wouldn't exist seperate from WP:CITE. Forums and the like are disliked because they generally are similar to fansites in that postinbg one gives undue weight to that site; for official ones, they are usually linked to from an official site which is allowed per this guide. Also, a lot of message boards are places where copyright material is linked to, not just images, but torrent links to illegal downloads and the like. Finally, most message boards are a hotbed for un-encyclopedic materiel. The main purpose of external links and further reading sections is for items that aren't really appropriate for citations, but none-the-less may give added understanding to the reader and enhancing the encyclopedic content of the article.陣内_Jinnai 20:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What Jinnai said, plus the inherent unpredictable nature: A chat room that was fine today could be filled with garbage tomorrow. (This is also a problem with blogs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes a lot of sense. Would this mean, though, that message boards that do NOT fit these criteria might be acceptable? For example, http://forums.cpanel.net (a series of boards for cPanel) Jason W. Carlton (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still a register-user generated message board, so no. It may be stable (I am not familiar with it) but nonetheless, it is a message board. Per your comment, I think it is print newspapers and some online too that are struggling because people can get the information much easier from other news sites.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The content of a discussion forum is never stable (unless nobody's discussing anything, right?). More importantly, it's not encyclopedic. There's nothing encyclopedic or informative about "Have any pre-sales questions? Unfamiliar with cPanel Software? Ask here so our cPanel experts can assist." or "Want a new feature in cPanel/WebHost Manager? Want us to enhance an existing feature? Post suggestions for cPanel and WHM here!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, only a link to a message board is allowed when the subject of the page is the message board itself. If the subject, however, is Cpanel, the official link is cpanel.net, and cpanel.net will, if the message board is important, have a link to forums.cpanel.net (on 'Cpanel', the link to forum.cpanel.net would be indirect, cpanel.net would be direct, on Cpanel forum, the link to cpanel.net would be indirect, there the link would be forum.cpanel.net).

There are some cases, where such message boards are very strictly controlled, only specialists can post new posts and people can just respond. Such message boards can, in some cases, pass the test (still, many are indirect etc. and hence fail on other parts of WP:EL) .. for the rest the answer is generally: no. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Official Website Link for Viewing on Mobiles?

• There seem to be a few articles around Wikipedia that have links to the official mobile version of a website and I'm wondering if we should have them at all? Do mobile phones auto-direct to the mobile version of a website if there is one? Do people use Wikipedia on their mobiles? If "yes" then how should we display the link? It seems weird to me to have an "Official website" template followed underneath by say "Example Mobile website" where it doesn't specify whether the company is selling mobiles and this is the official website or if it's just directing you to a mobile version of the website. So what do we think peoples? hehe AnimatedZebra (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that readers can generally guess whether the company sells mobile phones, based on what the article says. I don't think we need to worry about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• I've been looking around Wikipedia and people just seem to mostly put "Example mobile website", so I guess I'll do the same. Also, I do also think now that it isn't that hard to figure out whether a company sells mobiles or not, so I guess your right. Thankyou! AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Official links, reprise

I’ve come across an issue hinging on this sentence in guideline's “Official Links”:

”More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites.”

Somewhat in contrast, here are opinions[4] from editors in the recent January discussion on this:

“It really seems like we're crossing the line from a relevant external linking process to something that is advertising.” Timneu22

“in the cases of Facebook, myspace, twitter and the like I would say generally delete them but it depends on whats there.” Kumioko

“Basically, barring other circumstances, there should be one and only one official band "link", anything else is extraneous.” MASEM

“That's fine and I agree, but do we need these [social site] templates at all?” Dougweller

““By the logic of my arguement, we link to the official website, period. All else is superfluous. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of stuff someone might find "useful" or "interesting".” Jayron

“Myspace can count as an official site in situations where no better one is allowed, but it should be used sparingly. Facebook can be appropriate as an "official" link in articles about Facebook groups/phenomena, etc (but should be avoided in biographies, where most of the links currently reside).” Them

“Basically, I'm with ThemFromSpace here; do MySpace and Facebook when we absolutely must, but only when we absolutely must (and not in biographies), and dump Twitter altogether because it doesn't really add much.” The Blade of the Northern Lights

”This is indeed a perennial discussion. Simply: if there is an official site (www.band.com), then all of myspace.com/band, facebook.com/band, twitter.com/band generally become superfluous. We are not a linkfarm, we do not link to all possible external sites of a band (see the often ignored intro of WP:EL).” Dirk Beetstra

“I don't see the need for any MySpace/Facebook/Twitter ELs at all, they pop up in searches almost as easily as Wikipedia.” NortyNort

(There are fewer dissenting comments along the lines of, “we should be more selective” and “social sites might be useful to someone”.)

And now to the current issue. The guideline, as it stands, allows any number of official social sites, providing the (main?) official page is lacking “unique content” and is “not prominently linked” to the others.

My guess is that "unique content" is intended to imply: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject” (as stated in the opening paras of the guideline). But the sentence in regarding official sites doesn’t say that, it just says “unique”. The wording might be interpreted to mean that official sites are an exception to everything else in the guideline. Given this logic, two established editors chose to replace links to social sites that I had just removed: In one case restoring Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace and in the other restoring eleven External Links.

Could we change the guideline sentence on official links to be more specific? For example, to read:

“More than one official link should not be used unless the additional links have unique encyclopedic content that could not easily be incorporated into the Wikipedia article, and when those pages are not linked from any other official website.”

-- ELNO Checking (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors in question, let me clarify: the wording can't really be interpreted to mean that official sites are an exception to everything else in the guideline, only to WP:ELNO. :) The guideline specifically says, of official links: "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. My goal here, in part, is to avoid editors having to do synthesis of several statements to figure out what the current policy is. ELNO Checking (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Within ELOFFICIAL, "unique content" means something like "not covered by any of the other official links", not "complies with WP:ELNO#EL1". That is, you may normally link both www.Official.com and www.OfficialBlog.com, unless www.Official.com has a big sign saying "Click here to read the blog" or it includes the blog's contents. As an example, Schlock Mercenary can (should) link to http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ but not to the Twitter feed, because the Twitter feed is already displayed in the lower right-hand corner of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not what the majority opinion summarized above says. Nor is it the outstanding practice for several years running. Nor does it describe the result that shows in the links of Featured Articles. The majority opinion is that there should be one official link. ELNO Checking (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood, and you've not fairly represented the previous discussions in your selective quotations above. One link is often the best choice. (Note that in the example I gave, one link was the right answer.) But one link is not the requirement—and the actual practice, as measured in real articles, is to provide more than one link. If you don't believe me, then please explain why there are literally tens of thousands of links to Facebook on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the fact that one link is usually best does not even begin to address your actual question, which was about the meaning of the phrase "unique content" in the ELOFFICIAL section. Your guess at the meaning (that it means ELNO #1, even though the section explicitly states that official links are exempt from ELNO requirements) was wrong. I have told you want the actual meaning of the phrase is.

To put it another way: it is not sufficient for the additional links to contain material that is not in the ideal Wikipedia article (ELNO #1). Nearly all official links do that. Any additional official links must contain material that is not in the other official links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My take on this would be, that if there is an official site, that that should be linked, if it contains unique content or not, we do not care. Then you have the other social sites (generally the myspaces, facebooks, youtubes, etc.), if they are not prominently linked from the official site, then they may be sites to add, but the choice should be in such a way, that these sites then offer (a significant amount of) material that is a) not available already in the wikitext, b) is not includable in the wikitext (they could be temporarily listed until they fail point a), and c) is not covered by the official site ánd other external links already there. If the information is not covered by the official site, but covered by e.g. one of the other external links, then one should make the choice whether to keep the subjects official social networking site, or to keep the other one (which may be an independent piece of information, e.g. an interview or review site). But generally, the social networking sites do not really add encyclopedic information, upcoming tour dates of artists, posts to friends, links to their movies, whatever are often not information pertaining the subject (if they made movies, then if the movie is of interest it should have a wikipage and/or mentioned in the text, we do not need to link to it, and watching the movies is more an original research / primary source type of 'more info' about the subject and I believe that that type of information is outside of the scope of Wikipedia). Most of the time these sites anyway do not contain material of the level that would be needed in a FA-status article, information on those sites is generally less important/suitable.

If there is no official site, then the most prominent social networking site should be 'defined' as such, and then further social networking sites are subjected to the same scrutiny as earlier (often, but certainly not always, when subjects do not have an official site, the subjects notability is also less and may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but that is another question).

Note that it is outside of the goal of Wikipedia to list all social networking sites, we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory for a subject. For all here goes, there are no hard rules, WP:IAR should be applied with common sense. If a facebook really adds info not available elsewhere, then why not .. but if it is a twitter-feed with volatile information, then I would question the 'additional value' earlier - those do not tell about the subject, often, but about situations the subject is in (hence, more belonging on the 'situation the subject is in', not on the subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would add that if the one official page for an organization does not think their Twitter or Facebook page is worth mentioning, then why would we think it is worth listing in the article? As just stated, there will be some exceptions where the FB page has something of encyclopedic value, yet is not on the official site, so we might list it. However, the default should be one official link (and if that does not list other official links, we would need a good reason to do so). Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and XLinkBot

Ok, thank you folks. There seems to be no further discussion? Given: 1) The previous concensus this year, and 2) The current comments, and 3) The pragmatics that XLinkBot just automatically reverted to restore an edit that I made removing MySpace, Facebook and Twitter External Links [5], it seems that both the policy and the practice are to remove MySpace, Facebook and Twitter when another acceptable official site is available. It still might be preferable to reword the ELNO section on Official Links to avoid confusion, but at least I can proceed essentially doing what XLinkBot does -- particularly as my edits have additional assessment. ELNO Checking (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this. XLinkBot is not a human being capable of evaluating these links to see if they add encyclopedic value. You should not be removing these sites without some analysis. What's been said above is no different than what the guideline already says: one official link is sufficient unless additional links "provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

XLinkBot removed the links because they were placed by an unregistered user. You are supposed to be more aware of the guidelines than an unregistered user and more thoughtful than a bot. Mindlessness is not wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This should probably go to a larger venue than a guideline page. Perhaps someone should post this on a couple of relevant noticeboards and a village pump? tedder (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Current opinions are running about 10-2 in favor of being extremely strict disallowing MySpace, Twitter and Facebook External Links. XLinkBot's behavior also represents consensus in that the burden is on the unregistered user, as an example, to defend replacing those External Links.

It takes only seconds for a casual editor to add MySpace, Twitter and Facebook External Links. Assessing a collection of official sites for removal could take an experienced editor minutes, but would still not be definitive, since these sites are constantly in flux.

Certain links should be exceptions — but that's always the case. If someone replaces an external link to a social site, with an Edit Summmary, for example, that demonstrates they understand the ELNO guideline, then there's some chance those links should be exceptions. Moonriddengirl's edit to Sami Yusuf — which has generated this most recent discussion, is a counter-example. I have now spent hours, and been delayed for weeks removing social sites in exactly the same way that I have been doing for several years. It's significant that she re-added Facebook, Twitter and as external links, when, in fact -- once the intro finishes -- these are already linked on Yusuf's Official Page. ( www.samiyusufofficial.com goes eventually and automatically to http://www.samiyusufofficial.com/main/) Not only that, but Yusuf's Facebook and Twitter are trivial, promotional or duplicated information. Moonriddengirl's Edit Summary "These links do not seem to be "prominently linked from other official websites"[6] is exactly the kind of trivial conversation that should not be happening. Two very experienced and prolific Wiki editors are scrutinizing official pages for links that many or may not be there, which may or may not be valuable, may or may not have encyclopedic information that could not easily be added directly to the Wiki article, may or may not be "prominently linked". (I found the links in a couple seconds, is it really necessary to discuss if that is "prominent", too?)

Finally, the frequency and kinds of social sites that are being called "Official" is rising. Here's Wiki's "List of social networking websites" — over 100 sites. The burden of proof cannot be on the experienced Wiki editor to reconcile each of a half-dozen links to social sites that are thrown into Wiki with no explanation and no regard as to whether their content meets Wiki standards. In practice, if the burden is on the experienced editor to prove the social links are not encyclopedic, then they will proliferate, uncontrolled, across Wikipedia. Sincerely, ELNO Checking (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of external links is, that they should add. If there is an official page, then further official social media hardly ever add anything encyclopedic. ELNO Checking is right, even for experienced users, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include the link, 'No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense.'. We are not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory.

For the case of Sami Yusuf - the twitter, facebook and youtube channels are very prominently linked from the homepage. Moreover, twitter does not add anything in understanding, it is a volatile message channel (for Britney Spears I once followed the link to the twitter, where the top post was that she was going to have cake with her father on his birthday .. how is that encyclopedic and necessary for the understanding of Britney Spears as an encyclopedia subject). Moreover, even if they are not prominently linked, they often do not yield excessively more info than already in the article, and or mentioned on the official page (which, by the way, we often only link because it is the official page, not because it necessarily adds info to the article .. official pages very often fail WP:EL's second sentence 'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.'), and we are certainly not a web-directory for finding all social media for a subject. Keep it minimal, folks. Do follow the links and consider what encyclopedic info it adds that is not already in the article and/or mentioned on the official page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the conclusion that "It's significant that she re-added Facebook, Twitter and as external links, when, in fact -- once the intro finishes -- these are already linked on Yusuf's Official Page" at least a borderline assumption of bad faith. ELNO Checking himself acknowledges that "these sites are constantly in flux", and when I follow the actual link [7] supplied on the article, it still ends on a video that terminates on my browser in a black page. I don't care about Sami Yusuf; I watch the article for WP:BLP issues following an OTRS ticket dating back several years. When that article is changed, we are called upon to explain why those changes are not vandalism. When content is removed invalidly per guideline, it's kind of hard to defend. "Removes external links to social sites WP:ELNO" is simply put flatly wrong when WP:ELNO explicitly does not apply to official links. I did not add the links to that article, but I do object to their removal for invalid reasoning...and least I looked to see if there was guideline-valid reason to remove them. Unless this guideline is changed, links to these sites should be removed only after review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The "significance" is that even an Edit Summary -- which I was suggesting is one "acid test" about whether addition of social sites is appropriate -- is not conclusive. The lack of an Edit Summary, however, should be conclusive.

I don't have the ability to do video screen capture to demonstrate my experience, but no bad faith is involved there. I described what I saw, and assumed that you could see the same thing. When checking for the social site links, they took me about 10 seconds to find. Apparently on account of your browser setup, you have had some other experience. (This is another factor suggesting that the burden of proof be on the contributing editor, not up to other, established editors to evaluate under varying browser/computer configurations.)

I'm not expressing bad faith, either, in asking to continue my edits. Moonriddengirl, you asked me to completely halt my practice of years standing, so that your interpretation of "Official Links" should be examined. I agreed on account of my very constructive past association with you, and because I imagined this might be an amiable, productive discussion. I have provided ample evidence that group consensus supports my actions, explained that policy has been implemented by me for years along the same lines, and noted deleting social sites is so well-established that they are often done by a bot.

I did ask at the beginning of this discussion that the guideline be changed. And pointed out that complicated systhesis is required by editors to understand the policy completely. But given the need for clarity, I have a different suggestion:

1) Augment "Links Normally to be Avoided", Point 10 to include: "(A single External Link to an official site is allowed that meets other Wikipedia rules such as not being commercial, and that also provides encyclopedic content that cannot easily be added to the Wikipedia article.)"

2) Eliminate the "Official Links" section. According to definition an Official Link is "provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself". Since Wiki editors are already required to avoid WP:BIAS, this basically is a confusing rewording of what is already policy, where "opportunity" can be widely interpreted. A subject shouldn't have to resort to creating their own Web page to respond to information in a Wiki article that they feel doesn't represent them properly. The concept of Official Link should be maintained, because it allows the subject to categorically state which site the subject regards as the most official. ELNO Checking (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"My" interpretation of official links is explicitly encoded in the guideline (that is, that official links are excluded from WP:ELNO). I asked you to halt a practice that is not in keeping with that and pointed out that "There is no blanket provision for removing social networking sites that are official; instead, these need to be weighed against other factors, including whether our readers can easily find links to these from prominent placement on the official site" as well as that "In the meantime, however, it's probably best not to remove these links when they are "official" unless their removal is consistent with what the guideline actually says". If consensus supports altering the guideline, that's fine, but, again, removing links under a rationale that is clearly contradicted by guideline is wrong. We can't say "I'm removing this because WP:ELNO says to" when the guideline says WP:ELNO does not apply. That's a misapplication of WP:ELNO. (I also mentioned that the Sami Yusuf website seems badly designed; evidently, this is more true than I realized if something is causing it to terminate unsuccessfully on some browsers. That said, reading "significance" into the restoration of these links does suggest that I have an ulterior motive, as though my statement that "I cannot find a prominent link from the official website (which seems rather badly designed) to the Twitter feed, so there's no guideline-based reason that I can see to presume it is inappropriate for the article to do so" must somehow have been untrue.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but it's not really a recommended practice to change comments after they've been replied to. It can rob replies of context. (Per WP:REDACT) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "It's significant that she re-added..." comment is misguided and poorly expressed. I also agree that links should not be removed without thought (i.e. they should be reviewed). However, I support removal of these social networking sites on the basis that they are not helpful for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Someone might find extra links helpful, and the subjects of many articles like this often favor as many links as possible, but Wikipedia is not a directory of convenient links. Also, if the subject's official website does not think the social networking sites sufficiently important to prominently list them, why should we compensate for their failure? I tried the official site with a secure browser and saw a black screen with a "click here" link. After a couple of clicks I was at the real official site (http://www.samiyusufofficial.com/main/) which does show three social networking sites at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note, what Johnuniq says, I did check, they are prominently linked from the official site, so superfluous. We are not a web directory, we do not need to link to all social sites, and external links still need to add something. We don't link because they are official, and we certainly do not link to ALL official links of a subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You can add one more to the supporters of removing superflous "official" social networking links - which accounts for probably close to 99.9 % of those currently linked from Wikipedia articles. Active Banana (^bananaphone 07:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of allowing both Facebook and Twitter pages, of the institutions in question. Those are both extraordinarily high on Alexa ratings. Facebook is Number 2. Twitter is Number 9. Information one can find there is certainly not necessarily reflected on the subject's website. And it can be notable. Just ask Anthony Weiner.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rework Statement on Official Link

(This follows sections "Official links, reprise" and "Concensus and XLinkBot", and some of those points will be useful. Assuming that many people will not also have time to read the 3,600 word discussion, which touches on a number of tangents:)

I propose the following changes to ELNO:

1) Augment "Links Normally to be Avoided", Point 10 to include: "A single External Link to an official site is allowed that meets other Wikipedia rules such as not being commercial, and that also provides encyclopedic content that cannot easily be added to the Wikipedia article."

2) Eliminate the "Official Links" section. According to definition, an Official Link is "provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself". Since Wiki editors are already required to avoid WP:BIAS, this is a confusing restatement of what is already policy, a restatement where "opportunity" can be widely and argumentatively interpreted.

The concept of Official Link should be maintained, because it allows the subject to categorically state which site the subject regards as the most official.

There does not seem to be a need for explict provision of multiple Official Links links: Any external link that can be justified is always welcome, anywhere. Sincerely, ELNO Checking (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure about the first one myself. I think there are going to be a lot of exceptions to this. Also what to do about organizations who use things like Facebook and myspace as their official page? I am ok with the second idea though. --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1, do you want to remove the official links altogether from articles such as Amazon.com, eBay and Apple Inc.? Why? I understand that Wikipedia is not here to provide advertisement space for commercial retailers, but linking to official sites seems to provide basic value for our readers. (Have you followed WP:BIAS? I think it may not be what you're thinking of. As a matter of technicality, WP:ELNO is a single section; the "official links" section is not part of that section, although of course they're both part of WP:EL. Perhaps if you did not realize this, that explains your edit summaries removing official links.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No. #1 is Wikilawyering to remove all commercial links, Moonriddengirl's points are quite correct. #2 is a misconception - articles don't have "Official links" sections. This proposal seems to be coming from a single-purpose account dedicated to removing external links. Fences&Windows 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that something is amiss in the section about "official links", from the fact that "Minimize the number of links" appears as a paragraph that isn't even a sentence. (Or is it supposed to be a subheading?) But I'm reluctant to go in and fiddle. ¶ I have trouble understanding the proposal here. In particular: The concept of Official Link should be maintained, because it allows the subject to categorically state which site the subject regards as the most official. I've read that several times and I'm still lost. ¶ There's sometimes a problem with the "official site" for somebody who's dead. Example: Elvis Presley says that his website is elvis.com. This is surprising, as Presley predeceased websites. And elvis.com is an unashamed hawker of tat, pretty much epitomizing the kind of site not to link to, if only it didn't say at the foot "© 2011 Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.", an outfit which, I vaguely infer, has some rights to Presley's image or name or something. I have trouble believing that there is no "fansite" without official pretentions that is better than this atrocity. ¶ Perhaps there's a problem with the word "official", which is perhaps supposed to impress but to me at least has the reverse effect. If Presley were alive (and he wouldn't be that old), his article could be granted a link to "Presley's website". He isn't, so any site claiming to be his should compete for a link on its merits, not on its officialdom or officiousness or whatever we care to call it. Websites run by estates or by commercial entities claiming to possess rights over the dead don't seem to be explicitly dealt with in the page being discussed; perhaps this is for the good, but my hunch is that the page should clearly say that they should have no special claims to being linked. ¶ As for the living, I'm open to the idea of two or more sites, if they have little overlap. For example, somebody such as Nigel Warburton might have a philosophy and an aesthetics site, or somebody such as Noam Chomsky might have a current affairs and a linguistics site. But perhaps this should be left unsaid, and to the discretion of thinking editors. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have an issue with "official" sites of someone who is dead. These may simply be commercial enterprises, with no encyclopedic content. But the concept that one link can always be an exception -- allowed to break almost any Wikipedia rule -- a sort of "Get out of jail free" card is also incorrect. Either information follows the three core values, or it does not. "Official links" are not an opportunity to try as many times as someone likes to get their point across. ELNO Checking (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of the proposals (1,2) and think "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." could be reworded differently. I think the main purpose of an official site EL is just to direct a user to their official web content, which is due. This article is about X, and in case you were wondering, here is X's official site. I think bias would come into play with links that violate WP:ELPOV. Having a separate official link section helps address and gives due weight to one of the big problems/questions that arises from time to time. Ultimately, ELNO can come down to consensus on certain cases.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose all of the proposed changes, and I note—for what, the tenth time this year?—that more than one official link may be acceptable in some situations (and rather more often than "rarely"), and that Wikipedia does not discriminate against "commercial" websites. We link to what might be useful and interesting to someone who read our articles. If the website we link to happens to make some money as a result (or lose money hand over fist), then we don't care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the wording and practice of our policy on official sites needs some tweaking, but not in the manner proposed. If we have an article on a commercial organization, it would still be to our encyclopedic interest to link to its official commercial website. Bias isn't a factor with official links because, when clearly marked as official, everyone will understand that they are biased towards themselves. When we add links that contain encyclopedic material then we need to worry about bias, but not as much with official links. ThemFromSpace 06:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the value in insisting that there must be absolutely no more than one Official Link. Where is it written in the heavens above that an organisation or individual may only have one official site? See also comments above about how #1 makes problematic the linking from articles to the commercial sites they describe. Additionally, I'm not even sure there's a need that the site need contain encyclopedic content itself. Much like the birthplace of an individual, or the location of an edifice, the website address is essentially the online equivalent of a location, which is usually encyclopedic information. This whole approach seems overly insistent on slashing external links where no real benefit is gained. I challenge someone to show me an article where the official external links section is somehow onerous to anything except anti-EL sensibilities generally. (Misha Collins' twitter was apparently notable enough they made fun of/with him for it during one of the episodes of Supernatural. It's not really up to us to decide what's official.) - BalthCat (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I disagree with the changes in the vein that User:WhatamIdoing and others have mentioned. There's no need to link to every twitter feed of every wikipedia article, but in cases where the Twitter feeds are notable it seems worth including: Lady Gaga (has a record-setting number of followers), Justin Bieber (responsible for an astonishing volume of tweets), and Sockington, who is only notable because of twitter. An alternative would be to have an article about Sockington's Twitter and Lady Gaga's Twitter, since the subject of the article would be the twitter link, not the "official" link. Yes, it's the strawman argument, but those subjects are actually notable in terms of depth of coverage for WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A single link to the main site of a commercial organization will inevitably be commercial, but is necessary anyway. Encyclopedias are meant to be used, to be useful, and this is really the most important link in the article, the basis for the others. It will normally if it is more than a place-holder provide content we should not include in the article, and normally this content will not be encyclopedic -- if it were, we would include the content in the article.It's meant to extent the encyclopedic content by providing a place to go for the material that does not belong: in the case of commercial entities a detailed list of branch offices or affiliates, a list of executives, detailed product information and prices. (or the analogous material when the entity is noncommercial). Unless the website is poorly defined, normally a single link is quite sufficient, and probably less confusing than an attempt on our part to winnow out the significant sub-pages. Obviously there will be exceptions, but there are always exceptions and making provision for these need not be stated in over-detail. Essentially I agree with Whatamidoing; but I'm not as sure about such things as twitter feeds and facebook presences--any web-literate person knows where to find them---but if for some reason they are of unusual importance or not readily identifiable, then they too can be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I generally see it is that the external link to the official homepage gives direct info on the subject (even if most info it gives is incorporated in the wikitext or the site is utterly useless and empty, &c. I see it sometimes more a WP:IAR-type of linking there, sometimes official homepages fail massively WP:EL (even bordering on WP:ELNEVER), but it is just unreasonable to leave them out). Such a site can be an own domain, or an official facebook, myspace, even twitter. Most entities have one which is the major one, others are following up on that. We should simply list the most important one of them. And that may be the twitter ..

After that, the other official sites become less important, first of all, we do not link to all official sites, we have to select (there are so many social networking sites that it becomes impossible to link to all of them), secondly, they often do not tell what is already told by the first official one, thirdly because they are often already prominently linked from the first one. A second selection is clearly: what does the second (or the third ...) add which is not covered by the first (or the first two ...). If one can make a reasonable justification of adding the second (it is not prominently linked from the official site, and it gives info which is not on the other official site, etc. etc.), the third, ..., then yes, it can be added. If the official site is extensively telling about the subject, having links to other official sites on the mainpage (or a special page linking to all other official sites) then one needs a proper reason to include them here as well, that they are also official alone is not enough. The burden is on the person who wants to include them .. the first one passes easily - how does the second official site pass WP:EL taking into account the first one, how does the third official site pass WP:EL taking into account that there are already 2 others (also noting that other good external links to not-official sites sometimes more easy pass the criteria in WP:EL then the second official site of the subject - independent stories about the subject tell way more about the subject than the official twitter of the subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a professional webmaster, I have 10,000,000s of readers a year. I have a pragmatic viewpoint that is not being taken in account. In a perfect world each External Link could be evaluated and assessed on its own merit. In practice, editors with no interest in guidelines throw External Links to social sites into Wikipedia articles, leaving experienced editors to clean up the mess. This isn't sustainable.

The existing section on Official Links creates great confusion, because it implies to many casual editors that whatever they choose to call "Official" may be included in Wikipedia -- regardless of almost any other consideration. I have tried to explain that editors have used this section to add links that, in the case of Moonriddengirl are probably not encyclopedic, and in the case of Doc2234, replaced no less than 15 external links to social and commercial sites.[8]

There is a policy that XLinkBot automatically removes these links to social sites. Every one of the editors responding here has chosen to ignore this.

Instead, what I hear is whining about "every sperm is sacred".

Unfortunately, I've run out of time and patience. You may not realize that for many years I have been one of the main people removing social sites from External Links. I have been applying good judgment removing them -- even in mass -- as seen by the very low number of deletes to my edits.

You are left with a confused mishmash of rules for Official Sites that on the one hand allow almost anything to be added, and on the other, are deleted automatically by a bot. I leave you to the confusion you created. ELNO Checking (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good-bye, then, and thank you for your previous work.

I'm sorry that you are frustrated, and I'm sorry that you have misunderstood XLinkBot's role in reverting possibly bad links (1) added by newbies (2) one time as a WP:POLICY of prohibiting them (1) for all users (2) always. XLinkBot is not our WP:BLACKLIST; if these social networking sites were actually prohibited, we'd simply blacklist them and be done with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The biggest culprits won't even read policy. This rule primarily gives justification for arbitrary reversion, which is only so much of a timesaver, and comes at the cost of justifiable inclusions. - BalthCat (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Links in body of article

"Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."

I'd like to add following that sentence: "An external link should be used in the body of an article only where (1) an Interwiki link would be appropriate, (2) there is no Interwiki link available, and (3) the site being linked to is at least as authoritative as Wikimedia. (A website that would qualify as a reference in the article would pass that last test." <par>

It's the idea that I'm interested in, not the wording. George Dance (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No.

The reason we have this rule is because want people to finish reading the entire article before they click through to some other website (e.g., yours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If links didn't allow people to "finish reading the article before they click through," and it were a concern to Wikipedia, that would be a reason against having Interwiki links as well; yet you may have noticed that those are not discouraged. Putting aside what sounds like a personal attack (as I'm told "policy" requires me to assume you didn't intend one), then: you don't like the wording because you're afraid of people "clicking through to some other" sites.

Does anyone else have an opinion? George Dance (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what you think could possibly constitute a personal attack in my reply. Perhaps you would like to read WP:No personal attacks. Be sure to read the sentence that says, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Such links don't belong. Interwiki links are encouraged because we want to encourage people to read and edit other articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No external links with an article thanks. There are style issues (the text should read as a complete article without a need for stuff like "we haven't quite finished this section, but see here for more information"), and why wouldn't a reference with useful text that builds the article be sufficient? More important is the spam factor: anything like the above proposal would invite ongoing arguments about whether a particular site is sufficiently authoritative to warrant ten links in every article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There's been a very strong bias against any links (of the 'EL' or wikilink/interwiki varieties) in the body of articles. There's some evidence that is to keep a unified level of authority. In other words, if I linked to a userspace article with a pipe to make it look like a real article, the reader wouldn't know they have left the curated sphere of content. External links have a similar issue, so references and external links have been relegated to the edges of the article- still accessible, but not inside the main content bed. tedder (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Links in the body of the article linking to external sites are against our mission here (writing an encyclopedia), we are trying to write an encyclopedia. There is no difference between 'this is an example link', 'this is an example link', or 'this is an example link' - the three convey exactly the same message. Same goes for information which we do not have directly available on Wikipedia (or sister projects) - 'the story "The never ending story' is about a boy reading a book" is informative, best would be that it is followed by a proper reference to an independent source actually confirming that the story is about a boy reading a book, but linking to an online version of the book (if allowed according to copyrights &c.) would be original research, that is not independent of what is written here. Moreover, it gives problems in being incomplete (what if an author has two books written, one is now public domain text, and available online, the other not .. so we link only to the first?) and it opens all forms of loopholes towards spamming (if we allow 'this is an example link', then we also have to allow 'this is a company that sells the best viagra in the world'). Having links in the body of the text is hence highly undesirable, and I am against changing this guideline to allow this. External linking should be kept to a minimum, following the rules in the external links guideline - which have been laid down by many editors - certain external links are highly welcome, some maybe (when they really add something that can't be covered in other ways, e.g.), and for the rest .. no. We are not a web directory, e.g. for finding everything a subject has done, nor do we link to all of that, we are not a linkfarm linking to e.g. every single resource about a subject, we are an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a tangential point, citing a work of fiction for a straightforward, non-interpretive description of its contents is not WP:Original research; it is an acceptable use of a WP:PRIMARY source. It is considered so non-contentious that it does not require an inline citation at all; even FAs like The Country Wife and To Kill a Mockingbird contain no inline citations in their #Plot sections. Plots aren't one of the four things absolutely required to have inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth mentioning SEO friendly Wikimedia Foundation links?

Perhaps it would be worth pointing out to people that they can get 50 or so SEO friendly links by donating to the Wikimedia foundation?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

Only seems fair that everyone should be aware of this option considering the number of people looking for such links. Daamsie (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, a $5000 "donation" will get you one of those links 124.148.151.79 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes

In 2009, there was a discussion here at this talkpage about whether or not pages at the TV Tropes site were suitable as external links. That discussion can be seen here. It appears that there was not a clear consensus on the matter, so the question has come up again, and is now being discussed at the External links noticeboard. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which currently link to TV Tropes pages, so it would be helpful to obtain more opinions, to help gauge consensus on whether or not these links are appropriate. All interested editors are invited to comment at WP:ELN#TV Tropes, thanks. --Elonka 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tv.com person

Template:Tv.com person has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging

Someone has proposed rearranging the appendices so that the ==External links== section appears before the citations to reliable sources. Please comment there if you have an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging DMOZ/ODP links

A useful suggestion? Would it be wise to have text on this guideline that gives preference to DMOZ/ODP links? Something along the lines of:

"When creating an external links section, please try to find an appropriate category at the Open Directory Project and link to it using the {{Dmoz}} template. Links to the Open Directory Project should come toward the top of lists of external links."

The reasons why I think this might be advisable are:

• Encouraging ODP links would possibly discourage linkspam, as readers will be given a directory of links right off the bat
• A closer connection between ODP and Wikimedia projects seems like a good thing for transparent, volunteer-based Internet projects
• Using the {{Dmoz}} template ensures that if their category structure or URLs ever change (unlikely), these links can be more easily fixed using a bot account rather than sifting through all of these articles by hand.

I realize that this is a pretty sweeping suggestion to the external links guideline and if anything like it is ever added to the page, it will have to go through some serious discussion and consensus. Does anyone else think that this kind of privileging of ODP links is a good idea? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

why should that have a preference?

I have no objection against linking to the ODP in particular cases, but your reasoning makes little sense to me. I mean polemically speaking why no redirecting our article body to citizendium because our articles might not be properly sourced or are subject to POV pushing and spinning?

External links serve a particular purpose and one should link to the ODP if that purpose is served. Simply linking to the ODP for a "closer connection among volunteer based projects"' sake does not serve that purpose.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think that we're already privileging DMOZ links beyond their value. When we want to limit the spambait potential, we use a link-to-links, and that link is almost always to DMOZ—even when much better lists of links are available.

Philosophically, I'd rather send readers to a well-maintained list of links that happens to be commercial than to a lousy list of links that happens to be volunteer-based. From my chair, it's all about the immediate value we're providing to the reader, not the system behind creating that value (or lack thereof). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What should be censored and what should be not (unclear policies)?

Hello, I've read the relevant wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:CENSOR), but it is unclear for me if we can link to some (so called) "illegal" websites or not (assuming the link is relevant, is not spam, and fulfills all other policies/guidelines, of course). For example, at WP:CENSOR, it states we should not link to websites with "illegal content", but my question is, were do we draw the line?

Examples:

• Websites that host child pornography (should be a clear-cut "NO", I'm not even asking about that)
• Indexes (web directories) that contain links to websites with child pornography (I assume this is a case-by-case issue) For example, it seems some website called "The hidden Wiki" was blacklisted for this reason (not sure about this!)
• Websites that host copyrighted content - eg. Rapidshare and MediaFire (Assumed to be OK if we link to the homepage, since it does not link to any copyright content by itself?)
• Websites that link to copyrighted content indirectly - eg. ThePirateBay, isoHunt and many others (?)
• Websites that offer "illegal services" (as defined by the State of Florida) - assassination, illegal drugs, illegal weapons, etc... (current case: The Silk Road Marketplace) (Assumed to be not allowed?)

I know the best rule is to use the good old common sense, but I'm unsure of how to proceed. I would like some input to improve the general policies and also some input regarding the specific cases above, in particular ThePirateBay, isoHunt and Silk Road, since those articles link to the respective homepages. Thanks. --SF007 (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is the official homepage of the subject, we generally link to it. There are even cases where we whitelist the homepage (or an about-page) while the rest is blacklisted - solely for the reason of having it as an official link (Redtube springs to mind - every other addition of that site that I recall was abuse (e.g. replacing a schools' website) or spammy - note that this does not work with all sites, sometimes there is nothing 'neutral' available). As long as the page linked to is not illegal content I think we are fine if the link is neutral (don't do "to download illegal software, go to this website and follow the 'download area' link" of course - "Official homepage" should be fine). But we might want to think about extreme cases here, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OpenCorporates

I've started a disucssion on linking to OpenCorporates, following an approach they've made to Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tourniquet (band)

An editor added the band's official discussion forum to the Tourniquet (band) article. I removed it incorrectly assuming it was a fan forum. The editor restored it indicating that it was not a fan forum and that as such is permitted by this policy. Re-reading 10., I see that no forums are acceptable. Is it correct to remove it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering it's prominently linked from the official page, yes there's no reason for it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want more opinions,you might post to WP:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some day

When this little edit war is over, I'd like to link Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website under ==See also==. It's something we have to repeat fairly often at ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Location-specific availability of links

This came up on a discussion WT:ALBUMS. What is the policy for external references that are differently available based on the IP location of the person following the link?

The issue seems to be one of licensing. For example, links like these [Barabajagal] or [Like a Hurricane] seem to be working differently for different countries. (They work in the U.S.A. and Europe, but not for all countries in the world.) Is this something that should be an WP:ELNO? Or is that overly restrictive since a significant portion of users might be able to use the link while a smaller number cannot?

Also, this is going to be a difficult since an editor who in good-faith adds the link will not necessarily know that this is an issue because of the location-coding.

My vote is that this doesn't qualify as WP:ELNO, but perhaps should be documented in the prose for the reference, e.g.,

• Call the Doctor at MySpace (streamed copy where licensed)

-- J. Wong (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is directly addressed in WP:ELNO#EL7: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country" are to be avoided. If editors at the article agree the link is really important, then they can choose to link it anyway (it's "Links normally to be avoided", not "Links never to be linked under any circumstances whatsoever"), but normally we do not accept such links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to articles by journalists and other writers

Many times on the pages of authors and journalists, I've seen multiple external links pointing to pieces the subject has written. I can't find anywhere in the guidelines where this type of external link is mentioned, so I wanted to start a discussion here. To me, it seems vaguely inappropriate and somewhat promotional to have these sitting in an external links section. I'm also not sure how it serves the article. Surely, if the particular piece is important to the subject, a mention of it and how it builds upon the subject should be in the body of the article with a proper citation. Existing as external links with no specific mention in the article, they seem like a portfolio that is more appropriate to a personal website. I'm interested in building a guideline based on the consensus of this discussion. What say you good folks? Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it. However, the "best" thing to do (in a fully developed article) is to list it under a ==Publications== or ==Works== section, as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Works_or_Publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if we have an article on a writer it seems only natural to offer links providing free access to his or her writing. I wouldn't see that as a promotional thing, but rather a comprehensive coverage and service to readers. I mean for writers (as in books), musician or actors we usually offer a list of their complete works and if (legal) free online copies exist, we link them. On the level of individual articles however it might not be practical nor of that much interest to readers to list them all, but it still makes sense to list a selection and of course provide links to online copies if available. As mentioned above it might not always be the best choice to place such links under the external links section, but articles are always a work in progress and many editors are often not aware of the internal guidelines for standard sections when they add material. The most important thing for readers is here, that the material or link is available at all, if another editor moves it to a more appropriate section later on even better.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should there be some language to that effect? (i.e. a content guideline that states the best placement for such works would be in a section independent of ==External links== ?) Or is it more of a case where the difference is inconsequential enough to allow casual variation between articles? Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For myself, I'm in the "inconsequential enough" camp. Also, I expect that explicit directions would not be especially useful, since WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Icons in External Link templates

Based on a recent change to Template:Facebook, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Facebook icon. Feel free to contribute there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to scientist's bibliography as supplied by a citation search engine?

There appears to be general discouragement of links to search engine results. However, some scientific disciplines have well accepted databases for citations (e.g., PubMed, Astrophysics Data System); would it be acceptable to have a link in the External Links section that queries such a database for articles by the article's subject? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be almost as problematic as a link that calls a Google search. I think the issue is that these types of links do not lead to a fixed result: you never know what will come back. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. To clarify, is the worry that the database server will change how it accepts queries and that the link from Wikipedia will then be broken? On content issues, I am not particularly worried that, e.g., PubMed will lower its high standards of accuracy, or adopt a policy of advertising/spam. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the concern is that the editor placing the link will never know if the results will be meaningful or interesting to the reader, as the results will change every time the database does. Imagine a PubMed search for "fever": you'd probably get a different set of results every day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "fever" would be undesirable. If it is an authorship query from a proven database, however, the worst "unpredictability" is likely to be recent journal articles of the scientist, and I am thinking that such is a good thing. I guess I am still unclear on the danger. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think more specific to an author search would be the problem of getting results that included other authors of a similar name, especially from databases that cover relatively broad fields or include long histories. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but is that enough to make the citation searches useless? How often does that actually happen? (I'm looking for statistics and cost-benefit considerations here, not wooly 'well I know this one scientist whose name brings up some irrelevant stuff in this one database' anecdotes.)

Ideally, every page would have a fanatical editor who keeps the bibliography section up to date and linked to online copies of every paper and book, but we don't live in that ideal world; what's second best? The big databases who specialize in this, whose business is literally maintaining bibliographies! I think they do a pretty darn good job, whenever I have occasion to look through author listings on CiteULike or other sources.

Linking to laser-focus search-engines would do our readers a world of good, and would cost one or two lines at the very end of the article. There's no reason to not support such links. The heaviest burden we should put on these links is the same as any external links - the editor adding them is asserting the link is about the article topic. --Gwern (contribs) 16:36 3 August 2011 (GMT)

This is difficult. Generally, we link to pages which tell more about the subject of the page. Now, one could argue that the papers a person has written (or his books, or whatever) do tell something about the person, but generally, those tell more about the subject where the paper was written about (to continue the 'fever' example: if 'John Doe' wrote a paper about 'fever', then I would suggest that a link to that article is direct on fever as it tells about fever, while that article does not really tell anything about the person John Doe, except that he wrote an article about fever, and that that is something that he is apparently a specialist in, but that is already mentioned in the article here anyway so would also fail WP:EL). I would actually be more inclined to make a selection of high-profile articles written by the subject and put them into a '(selected) bibliography' on the page to show what subjects 'John Doe' is/was writing about, then a link to a full list on pubmed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a hand-selected list would be far more useful and interesting to the readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding links to Facebook and Twitter?

Per WP:EL links to Facebook and Twitter should be avoided. However, we have a template for twitter ({{twitter}}). I've searched through the archives but I can't find any consensus on this issue. User:XLinkBot reverts all Facebook and Twitter link additions (even if the Twitter account is verified); does this reflect current consensus?  Office of Disinformation  20:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that a template exists does not mean that you should use it whenever possible. That template is frequently misused. We don't generally delete templates merely because they are sometimes misused, and I would not realistically expect a nomination at WP:TFD to be successful.
• The fact that XLinkBot reverts all additions (1) for unregistered users and brand-new accounts (2) one time is very much supported by consensus. The consensus is not that the links are banned (they're not); the consensus is that newbies rarely know about the our guidelines, and so their additions of these links are usually inappropriate. There's nothing except your good judgment to stop you from adding these links whenever you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, links to Facebook and Twitter are permitted as long as they're verified official accounts?  Office of Disinformation  20:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the "Minimize the number of links" section of WP:ELOFFICIAL, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." So there appears to be some limits set in place already. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ELOFFICIAL does seem to cover it. Thank you.  Office of Disinformation  21:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a case of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Twitters, MySpaces, YouTube Channels, Facebooks, and all the other social networking sites are just generally inappropriate external links, we do not need to link to all official sites of a subject. Moreover, then there are also the fan-operated Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. The general take is, link to the most official site of the subject (which generally is the 'subject.com' or something similar, but that can indeed be a MySpace or a Facebook or even a Twitter in some cases). Then all the others have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis whether they actually add something that is a) not already mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the subject, and b) is not mentioned by the 'most official site' and c) is not already prominently linked from the 'most official site'. In over 99% of the cases, the second official site fails already that, and others as well. And if these sites are the most official site of the subject, they often are just about notable enough for Wikipedia (sure, there are exceptions). Although a long time ago, I did a look at 30 MySpace reverts by XLinkBot. Of those, 29 were quite correct, just one case where I would say 'I would not have reverted that one, but would not have added it either' (note, IIRC, there was not a case in those 30 where it was the most official site of the subject). So, basically, they are allowed, and there is use of these sites, but limited, and with common sense. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Awhile ago I set AWB to find all the links to the Twitter template on Wikipedia and I spent a few hours looking over many of them. Some were acceptable, but I ended up removing the great majority of the ones that I looked at. I don't think it was as high as 29/30, but perhaps 9/10 weren't appropriate. Ask yourself if a link to a subject's twitter page is really relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of that individual. More than likely Twitter won't get you anything more than gossip. ThemFromSpace 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Official websites can be rarely updated and boring, whereas a social networking site can be rich with "other meaningful, relevant content". For example, a twitter feed can highlight an individual's take on of recently published reliable sources. I'm not talking about a physicist who as a hobby only keeps up with politics, but a case where a significant amount of comments center on reliable sources that are related to the person's notability. In this case, I say a link to that social networking site could trump a link to the official site. Jesanj (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj, that is basically what we say above. There are cases where the official site does not tell too much, and where the facebook or myspace is giving more info. Still, that does not happen thát often, and if the facebook/myspace/twitter are already linked (prominently) from the official page, then certainly we do not need them, even when they do give more info than the official site. There is just no need to linkfarm there. They are mere exceptions (like I said about the 30 MySpace reversions I examined quite some time ago, of which I would have kept only one, though I would not have added it either ..). That is why XLinkBot can be reverted where needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that "if the facebook/myspace/twitter are already linked (prominently) from the official page, then certainly we do not need them" is wrong. In those cases, the link would meet WP:ELYES #3. Therefore, because editorial judgement is required, WP:ELMAYBE seems appropriate. The wording could be something like "Selective links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists can be appropriate when they contain other relevant, meaningful detail that relates to the subject's notability". If we don't elevate to ELMAYBE, at the very least, it seems we should put the consensus exception at the end of ELNO #10. Jesanj (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, See WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - it is not in Wikipedia's task to link to all possible information that one can find about the subject, nor to all the official websites of a subject. The bar is, that the link needs to add information which is not provided by the other ones. Under your reasoning, linking to a {{dmoz}} should be accompanied by all the links mentioned in the {{dmoz}}, because they are all about the subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)