Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Mywikibiz as external links

Sorry if this has been asked/answer/dealt with. I am seeing mywikibiz(i think thats it, correct me if Iam wrong) links in bios. Is this approriate or does it fail one of the criteria for inclusion? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I guess this would fall into criteria #12 for why not to include? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles are either pure self promotion created by the subject or hatchet jobs by detractors. Should be on Xlinkbots blacklist. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it after an urgent request that it should not be on XLinkBot .. (see User_talk:XLinkBot#MyWikiBiz.com). I was ambivalent, but did not see any recent 'spam-like' activity with it. However, if it is felt otherwise .. it can always be readded. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So they would not be appropriate for EL section. No opinion about XlinkBot above since I don't trust or like bots :) --Tom (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of the guidelines for being listed with xlinkbot - and apparently just being a cesspool of the internets poor content is not enough, spamming or promotion is required and that currently isnt happening. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For the majority of the regexes, my personal thoughts are 'it is often added by new accounts/IPs in a way which violates WP:ELNO (or one of the other policies and guidelines, generally, WP:COI/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:COPYRIGHT)'. Mywikibiz has, according to my stats, not been added too much, so there was no reason to have it on XLinkBot (especially since there was a serious request to have it removed). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have a COI (as the founder of the site), MyWikiBiz is a notable enough site that it has its own stable article within Wikipedia, and some of its pages are more detailed biographies than what is available on Wikipedia. For example, compare Liz Cohen on Wikipedia with Liz Cohen on MyWikiBiz. I could probably point to about 25 Wikia wikis that receive EL's from Wikipedia that have far, far, far less editing and subscribership activity than MyWikiBiz, but we don't see Wikia being nominated for a blacklist (why is that?). Yes, MyWikiBiz directory pages are usually self-promotional. There are certainly less than 20 "hatchet jobs" on the website's 40,000+ pages (so, I would appreciate a retraction of that swipe). If you see any EL's from Wikipedia to a hatchet job, please delete the link, or I will do it personally.

If it is of interest to you, I can also provide web traffic data which, I think, would surprise you by how little of MWB's site traffic is owed to links from Wikipedia (other than the obvious fat one from MyWikiBiz. -- Thekohser 03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson is notable enough for an article on him, that doesn't make linking to his website a good idea. Notability and popularity are not EL criteria. Encyclopedic merit, quality, reliability, detail and a few other things are. (And Wikia websites are usually bad links too so why bring that up?) 2005 (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, User:2005, I think you didn't notice, but mentioning an infamous name in reference to a situation of mere business dealings is uncivilly odious. This is one of those cases where a delete-replace edit is recommended, possibly replacing within square brackets – rather than striking through. Milo 08:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw, heck... if my hard work has already been maligned as a "cesspool of the internets", what's a little Charles Manson reference? Anyone want to shoot for the Hitler Trifecta?

Meanwhile, look at this filth on MyWikiBiz. Can anyone here ever imagine MyWikiBiz evolving into a credible destination of EL's from Wikipedia? Bah, never! -- Thekohser 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, please try to be civil at least occasionally and don't make up silly stuff. The text is there, and the point is correct. Just because some entity is notable does not mean that we will link to it. I didn't equate his website with Manson since I didn't even mention his website, which I've never seen and don't care about at all. This is the talk page about the guideline, not how cool or uncool specific sites are. 2005 (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, MyWikiBiz is a swath of poor quality content, POV pushing, and some legitimate, solid info. So the same rules should apply. Take each link on its own merits, rather than just blacklisting it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of Greg (Thekohser), but we must be fair here, especially given any dislike we may have of him. MyWikiBiz links can and should be examined just as any other links—there are cases where they may be appropriate, and cases where they may not be appropriate. We don't need to use ad hominem or straw men arguments, which seem to be common to both "sides" of this discussion. For example, the Manson argument is a straw man (Greg isn't that bad) but the Wikia argument is equally a straw man (the existence of other unjustified links does not justify more—and please, you're quite free to point out unjustified Wikia links!)

Greg's example of his Liz Cohen article is one that's favourable to him: it contains a number of nice images of Cohen and her project that are both relevant and can't be used on Wikipedia (traditionally-copyrighted, used there with permission). This is something that provides "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". I think that that link can thus be justified. The "List of medieval philosophers" (Greg's link titled "this filth"), on the other hand, doesn't provide a particularly unique source of information: names, dates and places aren't particularly "unique", and the column detailing the integer number of pages devoted to them in a particular reference likely isn't relevant. That page should probably not be linked from Wikipedia.

Links to MyWikiBiz should not be banned, but they do merit careful consideration. For the record, this applies equally to Wikia articles: if a Wikia link fails the external link criteria, remove it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow it has a complete listing for Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Âge grec et latin . And the complete text in Latin of Peter of Cornwall's sophisma Every man exists. Peter Damian (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not qualify as a valid EL. Claims above that it has same problems as Wikipedia and is treated the same way are odd, in that w do not link to other Wikipedia style projects. Ditto for the claim that we aren't trying to blacklist Wikia -- we aren't supposed to link to Wikia generally either. Only those wikis will stable content and etc. should be linked to. Lots of our links on various pages to wikis shouldn't be there either. Saying we link to those so why not this is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, Peter. Nihiltres couldn't be bothered with actually looking at some of the articles linked from the "List of medieval philosophers". His intent was to make his personal opinion of me known (along with my real name), while hiding behind his Montreal-based pseudonym, immune to any real-name criticism of his patterns of behavior. That only left time for a cursory dismissal of the page I pointed out, without exploring whether any of the listed, linked-to pages about the philosophers themselves might be more comprehensive than what lurks in his beloved Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When you list your real name on your userpage the complaints that I'm mentioning it are baseless—not to mention that it's trivial to connect your "founder of the site" above with your real name given your profile(s) there. My personal opinion is relevant because we're discussing your site: I'm not hiding my biases. I do think it's important to be fair, and I've defended you here against what attack was unreasonable. My pseudonymity is pointless: discredit my "Nihiltres" identity and I lose nearly as much as if my real name were on the line.

That being said, your attack on my "dismissal" of your page is a straw man: my "dismissal" of your page wasn't cursory. I specifically mentioned the page that you linked—I did not imply in any way that the pages linked from it were good or bad, and I didn't even begin to discuss what might be in Wikipedia. We're discussing external links here: the specific page I mentioned did not have much useful material on it, so it would probably not be a worthwhile external link: it's very simple. I don't feel like arguing the relative merits of your various pages here. My point is rather that summary judgments are inappropriate here, and that point is in your favour. Let it go. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The conversation appears to be veering from the original posters question, but I think we have reached a pretty much community consensus (to steal from Nihiltres): "MyWikiBiz links can and should be examined just as any other links—there are" a few "cases where they may be appropriate, and" many "cases where they may not be appropriate."

Have I captured the conversation? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If MyWikiBiz is going to be treated like a myspace or facebook page then there is no problem but any UGC is going to fail as an RS, looking at the Liz Coehn page on here I would be tempted to send it to AfD, with the best outcome being for it to be deleted. Adding MWB links to that page would not save it from an AfD anymore than her personal website would, looking at MWB is it not simply a webhost with autobiographies written by the subjects, if someone wrote a Wikipedia article like a MWB page then it would be torn down for lack of RS and COI. I don't see a point where an article would need a MWB link, and if it was on Xlinkbot previously then why was it added? Most Xlinkbot links stem from a spate of spamming, has anyone spammed MWB links in the past, (on Liz Cohen some considered it spam last year)? Darrenhusted (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One removal by any one editor claiming a domain/URL as spam doesn't make it spam, even if it's an admin, up to and including Jimbo. Informed discussion from a broad spectrum of users is consensus. rootology (C)(T) 04:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The conversation isn't over yet. MyWikiBiz is... a free Wiki. It's contents are no better or worse than any other free wiki project. It's usage should be addressed case by case, article by article. We can't blanket-ban such a project because of it's nature, which would go against our mission to spread free knowledge. A perfect model of how these links need to be treated is how we treat Wikia.com links, another free wiki-based project of sometimes good, sometimes great, and sometimes worthless content--like any wiki. rootology (C)(T) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As a free wiki, it starts out as a link to be avoided unless it can prove worthiness, which it hasn't. Saying we treat them on a case by case basis when we already know that that answer is going to be no almost in any conceivable circumstance is misleading and pointless. We should just say outright no in such helpless cases instead of giving self-promoters a wide opening to wikilawyer their way into adding unhelpful links all over because somebody said a maybe that got abused. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Equador Wikia, useless; Sealab Wikia, useless; Harry Hill Wikia, useless; and many more. Many of these have no content of value, Wikia's value is not inherited to all projects there. By your logic, we should be purging links to the general crap of Wikia. It's the same here--we judge links case by case, not "site by site". Why is MyWikiBiz a "helpless case", and where was this decided by a consensus discussion? rootology (C)(T) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As those three links were indeed useless, I've removed them from the corresponding articles. Of course we should treat these sites on a case-by-case basis, but the simple answer when asked if we should link to wikis is "generally not, unless there is a good reason to". --Conti|✉ 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree fully with your take, but not with DreamGuy's, whose policy interpretation appears to be his own creation. No site is inherently a "not qualified", and we have to take it on a case by case basis per link, not domain. rootology (C)(T) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? There are plenty of sites that are inherently not qualified. Some domains are just plain no. I'm certainly not making up my own policy on this, as that's absolutely noncontroversial to the strong majority of editors here. Some sites ARE just plain no. And based upon this being a wiki without a stable base of editors, this is clearly one of them. DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You saying it's "clear" doesn't make it clear. It would seem that the consensus in this discussion is that there may be a handful of high-quality, informative, useful pages on MyWikiBiz that may merit linking from Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 05:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's the other way around, actually. The large majority of pages on MyWikiBiz should not be linked to from Wikipedia. The rest should be looked at in a case-by-case basis. --Conti|✉ 10:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but at the same time I don't think there really are a lot of link to mywikibiz that we should link to. There's one at Sophismata that doesn't seem particularly useful to me. Heck, it's lead is an unattributed copy of the Wikipedia article (unless User:Peter Damian is User:Ockham). So "We shouldn't generally link to mywikibiz" sounds about right. There are always exceptions, of course. --Conti|✉ 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on this and [1] User:Peter Damian is User:Ockham- and I might add, quite protective about keeping the links from the wikipedia articles to his uploads at mywikibiz reverting my deletions based on the coversation here within a matter of hours. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for thekohser: How many unique editors does MyWikiBiz get on a typical day? Do you know what percentage of editors work on, or watch, more than one article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm interested in stats as much as the next guy, how does that pertain to deciding whether to allow it as an EL? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My question relates specifically to WP:ELNO#EL12: Open wikis are bad, unless they have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

MyWikiBiz seems to be an open wiki. But does it have the required level of stability and active editors? If it doesn't, then it's a lousy link. If it does, then it can't be banned solely on the basis of that single rule. (It might not qualify for all sorts of reasons, but that single rule would become irrelevant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks for explaining how it was pertinent. Anyhow, using Special:Listuser on MWB turns up a maximum of 1000 registered users (browsing 4 pages set to list 500 per page.)[2] So I wouldn't exactly say it's the largest user base. "Stability" is far trickier, sort of like trying to judge if a source has enough of a history of fact-checking and accuracy to merit being reliable. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz has a curious dual nature. The pages in Directory space are not "open" as in other wikis. They are protected from community editing -- so the only eligible writers on Directory pages are the original creator of the page and the sysops of the site. The pages in Main space are more typically "open", although editing privileges are limited to those who authenticate their account via an e-mail address. I tend to agree that there should not be a ton of links to MyWikiBiz from Wikipedia. However, there are currently less than 80, and the vast majority of these emanate from User Talk and Wikipedia Talk pages. Wikia, in contrast has polluted Wikipedia with more than 16,000 links. Similarly, most are from User and Wikipedia spaces. But, really... less than 80 links, versus an excess of 16,000 links. Are you sure MyWikiBiz is the bigger threat to the WP:EL policy? -- Thekohser 04:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the fallacy outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? The problems with Wikia links don't tell us anything at all about the value of MyWikiBiz links.

It looks like MyWikiBiz had seven unique editors yesterday. That's not exactly the level that I think qualifies as a "substantial number of editors," but perhaps others will have a different opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seven unique editors does not appear to be a "substantial number of editors" to warrant linking. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously on this page some folks suggested "thousands" of editors as a threshold. Some replies said "hundreds" may be be enough. But at bare minimum anything less than "dozens" is nowhere close to the threshold needed. 2005 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But a thousand are registered. July is summer off for a lot of students, and the 5th of July was a major holiday weekend in the USA. It's hardly fair to judge the number of editors based on one sample during an expected summer minimum. If it's impractical to count the total number of unique editors during the last 12 months, then the registered editor base is the practical alternative. Milo 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And most of those who registered have barely edited at all (much like here, or pretty much any forum I can think of). Registered users tells us very little; active is a better benchmark. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Registered users tells us very little; active is a better benchmark." Only if seasonally averaged. Active users is better if one can determine total or average of users per last 12 months, by actual count or enough samples. Otherwise registered users provides more reliable information, especially in a formula using other statistics such as age of the wiki. Milo 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- (outdent) You'd better be very careful what you define as a threshold minimum for active editors for a wiki to be considered legitimate, because I will take that information and use it as my authority for deleting certain Wikia links, and when those links get re-added by other members of the Hive-Cult, then I'll have grounds for blacklisting all of Wikia as a "persistent spam site, in violation of our minimum editors threshold for inclusion". Think about it. Do you really want to go there, then have to backpedal on why the Wikia links are okay, but the MyWikiBiz links are not okay? -- Thekohser 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, that sounds a lot like a threat to do some super pointy editing. Classy. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's grant that you have a certain amount of external power. I agree that your point about using care in choosing the threshold is well-taken.

How about working with others knowledgeable of wiki-rating to choose several sets of specifications based on statistical and computer science, and presenting these for pro and con debate, much as the Abuse filter debate was consensed? Milo 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. There definitely are more links to Wikia on Wikipedia than there should be. You can start here. :-) --Conti|✉ 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think going so far as computer models seems a tad complicated for the issue... pointy assertions by Thekohser aside, I think it's obvious to say that MWB links should be scrutinized on a case by case basis just as Wikia links and other wikis are. If you want to tackle all the Wikia links, be my guest, I find it sufficient to audit them in pages I've watchlisted. Really, unless there's some dramatic sea change, there's no way that we could blanket accept MWB any more than pretty much any site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to get so pointy there, but sometimes it seems that the revenge layer around here is so thick, it's hard to penetrate with logic. I'm guilty of it sometimes, too. Look here, I agree that MyWikiBiz may only have a half-dozen or so pages that merit inclusion via external linking in Wikipedia's article space. The fact that there are thousands of purely self-promotional pages on MyWikiBiz does warrant extra vigilence in how lower-quality pages may "creep" into Wikipedia's external link system. I haven't seen it become a rampant problem yet, however. As for trying to work with others to "rate" external sites for inclusion in (or exclusion from) Wikipedia's linking guidelines, I'd like to offer this: Somebody show me the proof that a wiki with high levels of activity across a broad range of editors results in more stable, more reliable, more useful informational content. I postulate that MyWikiBiz's modest requirement that editors authenticate via an e-mail address, combined with the site's architecture that limits editorial access to Directory pages to one editor only (plus sysops), actually creates a more stable, more reliable, and potentially more useful informational environment than other, more popular wikis (such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, Chickipedia, or some Wikia wikis). Let's use our heads. The content assembled here merits linking from Wikipedia, despite having only one editor. Something like this probably does not merit linking from Wikipedia, despite having four editors. If we can agree on that, then maybe we could come up with some firm guidelines for wiki merit -- such as Alexa ranking, unique editors in past 30 days, new accounts in past 30 days, number of pages in the wiki, etc. -- Thekohser 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Firm guidelines" is probably too strong, but "consensed guidelines" is a suitable term of art since consensus can change through WP process. Milo 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm not seeing what the fuss is about then. We agree. I'm not sure firm guidelines for sites really work here, simply because the merits of linking are dependent on a single page on a site, not the site itself. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A "profile of characteristics" is often used in this situation. Like school grades: "A/4" in English, "C/2" in math, "B/3" in biology, etc. Milo 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if you find links to wikia wikis that have even fewer editors than MyWikiBiz, you'd be doing us a favor to remove all of them, and if some people object (can't be that many if the sites in question are that rinky-dink) then they need to get with WP:EL rules as well. Regardless of whether it was intended as a threat to try to make us see the supposed error of our ways, I call your bluff. Go for it. Either way, though, you aren't getting links to MyWikiBiz.com. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am. -- Thekohser 05:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I, too, support removal of links to any and all half-dead/never-quite-alive/barely-anyone-home/otherwise under-supervised Wikia sites. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the fact that other **** exists is not an excuse for including more ****. We want good links at well-maintained sites, not zero-intelligence/even-handed acceptance of garbage. There is no "right to link sites that are no more garbage-y than the some other garbage sites". All the garbage should go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"All the garbage should go" Perhaps few would disagree with this unexamined position in principle. In practice, unavoidable threshold uncertainty would force exclusion of some sites that might not be garbage. Such cases would correctly be publicized as bureaucratic unfairness and become harmful to Wikipedia's reputation (not abstract – it could happen now).

The fix is to state the principle inverted: All the good sites should be kept. Uncertainty would then force the keeping of some garbage sites, but the worst situation should be no worse than now, which appears not fulminatingly harmful.

The equivalent principle in criminal law is 10 guilty persons should go free rather than one innocent person be punished. The rule supporting this principle in criminal law is: "guilty" is to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal law guides the jury judging of extreme cases (crimes). Compare to civil law which guides the jury judging of typical cases (torts): prevail or fail is to be decided by a preponderance of the evidence. Milo 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping all the good sites, too. Your analogy to criminal law is fatally, and perhaps some would say offensively, flawed: there is no fundamental human right to have a particular website listed in a Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The analogy has almost no intrinsic relationship to rights, but the many educational victims of watching commercial television dramas reflexively think like that. (And reflexively buy overpriced TV merchandise.)

We are discussing rulecrafting, the junior cousin of lawcrafting. Fundamental to lawcrafting is the difference between the judging standards of criminal and civil law. Statistical reality of extremes and typicals underlies those two standards. Milo 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo groups

I know that in the distant past I added a mailing list and was told it was against our EL guidelines. When I looked into them I realised why and agreed. I removed a Yahoo group/mailing list from Qawwali today and it was put back, twice, the 2nd time with an edit summary "our guidelines are not inflexible rules. this newsgroup contains a wealth of useful information not available anywhere else, so it is a useful reference".[3] True or not, this is an argument that I can see being made everytime anyone says 'that shouldn't be linked'. Shall I just go away and ignore it now? I know I've seen people say talk page consensus overrides guidelines, which in turn means a small group of editors could hypothetically do what they want to (I've raised on the same article's talk page the same editor's insistence that no articles and evidentally no evidence is required to add someone to a list of 'well-known qawwals'). Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Frankly, considering the purpose of Yahoo groups, I'd revert it as spam and give a warning. It completely fails WP:EL and there is never a valid reason for adding a Yahoo Group to any article. Surprised it isn't already in the blacklist really. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups is explicitly listed under the EL links to be avoided section. Local consensus does not overrule guidelines, generally, otherwise we might as well not ever have any such rules for how often people will ignore them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put a pointer on the talk page to this discussion. Her response was " The newsgroup (in its "Files" area) genuinely contains a wealth of information, compiled by qawwali fans as a labor of love, which is simply not available anywhere else. That's not hyperbole. It's not that it'shard to find it anywhere else. It simply doesn't exist anywhere else. Examples include: a virtually complete list of the qawwalis recorded by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and the names of the poets who wrote the lyrics for those songs." Nice argument but again, that could be made for most Yahoo groups, in my experience, which is actually fairly large and includes more or less academic ones, cooking ones, fiction ones, etc, most of them contain similar stuff in their files area. She didn't mean 'newsgroup' I'm sure, she is talking about a Yahoo group. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Not only is it an unreliable e-mail chat group, the supposedly valuable "Files" section is hidden behing a registration wall, which violates ELNO #6. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor in question at Qawwali that Dougweller refers to.

For the record, I am not a she, and I'm not sure how Dougweller jumped to that gender assumption.

I take the point about the Files area being accessible only after registration, but there are still a bunch of other issues arising out of the comments here and on Talk:Qawwali, [[4]], which I have responded to on the Talk:Qawwali page. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user name contains both "Sara" and (almost) "Beth", two common female names. I can see why someone would think you are female, so please don't take offense.

Your arguments for including the Yahoo Groups link, however, are not compliant with WP:EL rules in any way. You also seem to be suggesting that you have a WP:COI, which is even more reason for you to not put the link there. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarabseth is the leader of the Yahoo Group in question and I've told him that it fails these guidelines months ago and have pointed him at the COI guidelines, yet it appears he is still trying to promote his group. This is in no way acceptable. ThemFromSpace 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments for including the Yahoo Groups link, however, are not compliant with WP:EL rules in any way.

Since WP:EL rules are actually guidelines, not inflexible rules, I have no idea what it means that my arguments "are not compliant with WP:EL rules in any way."

Maybe you can spell out in what way WP:EL "rules" make my arguments invalid? --Sarabseth (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE - but here we go. In order for us to blythely ignore applying the guidelines that community consensus has established as the guidelines / policies / rules that if consistently applied will improve the encyclopedia, it is up to YOU to convince us that in this instance ignoring the rules will in fact improve the encyclopedia. You have not yet and repetition of the same arguments will not either. When you are told over and over and over and over by different people the same thing, you may want to step back and think that maybe your interpretation and application is not correct. Otherwise if you continue your behavior may cross the line into disruptive behavior which would lead to consequenses that you may not be happy with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When the "rules" are guidelines and not absolute prohibitions, and when the guidelines therefore provide for exceptions, how is permitting an exception equivalent to ignoring the rules?

That's really not that hard to understand, is it? Why is it to hard to respond to it, instead of just simply dismissing it? And now you're adding in threats too? I don't see how my comments here have been disruptive in any way. But feel free to punish me with whatever consequences you think I have deserved. --Sarabseth (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your problem because a similar thing happened to me. The best way to deal with it is to keep this page on your watchlist and comment on editors and issues that you see being treated unreasonably.

I agree that the guiderules need to be modified to account for external links to rare resources behind registration and subscription walls. Newspapers often require these things, and I don't see that Yahoo is much different in size and importance (WP:RS isn't an external links issue).

However, the real problem here is your COI. You need a number of other editors at Talk:Qawwali to consense that the link should exist in the fully disclosed context of your leadership of the Yahoo group in question. An open-ended poll may be useful for this purpose. Milo 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For your "rules lawyering" you appear to be fixated You appear to be focusing on a claim that WP:EL "is only a gudieline". Here is how Wikipedia defines guideline "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (emph. added) You want your link to be one of the "occasional exemptions" - convince us why this link should be one of the exceptions that will improve the encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my last 2 comments here.

I wasn't trying to argue any more for retaining the Yahoo groups link in the Qawwali article. I conceded that point when I wrote: "I take the point about the Files area being accessible only after registration".

All I've been asking is why everyone believes that this guideline, which specifically allows for exceptions, as you just spelled out, should be applied in practice as if it is an absolute prohibition, with no exceptions ever allowed or considered. Because that had very much been the tenor of this discussion up till now. (For example, "It completely fails WP:EL and there is never a valid reason for adding a Yahoo Group to any article".) This last comment is the first time after Dougweller raised the issue that anyone has made any kind of statement that exceptions can even be considered.

You want your link to be one of the "occasional exemptions" - convince us why this link should be one of the exceptions that will improve the encyclopedia.

That's hilarious, because this of course is exactly what I tried to do (see Dougweller's second comment above). Kind of hard to do, though, when the argument you make is just reflexively dismissed, without any reference to the merits of the argument, because Yahoo groups are, apparently by definition, unreliable e-mail chat groups. Only Milo even considered my argument. The suggestion of an open-ended poll is constructive, but I'm wary of investing time and effort figuring out how to conduct one, and then actually doing it, if the editors who have been opposed to this specific link (given all the circumstances) would just come along and remove it again. Anyone care to comment on whether an open-ended poll, conducted as Milo suggests, would be accepted as justifying an exception?--Sarabseth (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in Yahoo groups for years, owning and/or moderating several. I am aware of their file sections and the sorts of things that are in them (and that unfortunately some include copyright materials, which in itself is a good reason to not allow them as external links. So it may be that we need to tighten up the guidelines, not weaken them to allow access in the way suggested above. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you endorsing Yahoo group collective punishment because some Yahoo groups include copyrighted materials? Milo 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your question, there are some sites that have so repeatedly been through the process and failed that the community has specifcally called them out as inappropriate in the guideline itself so that attempts to insert them can be swiftly and directly pointed to "NO" so that the community does not need to spend endless hours coming to the same conclusion that it has in the past.

In addition, my previous tone and attitude towards your questions on this page and the article page have been anything but welcoming and I apologize. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller wrote:

I am aware of their file sections and the sorts of things that are in them

I'm not aware that there are any universal rules about the sorts of things that are in the Files section of Yahoo newsgroups. Perhaps some groups may have unique sorts of things in their Files section?

TheRedPenOfDoom, thanks for the gracious apology; much appreciated! --Sarabseth (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

EL question at Paraphilia

There's a question about whether a "professional reading list on the paraphilias"[5] is an appropriate external link at Talk:Paraphilia#Disclosure.

The author-and-Wikipedia-editor is clearly an expert (a sexologist whose research area is paraphilia and who works for the institution widely recognized as being the world's leader in research on paraphilia), so I have no concerns about complying with WP:ELNO #11, but I'm not sure whether external "further reading" lists are desirable.

(Fair warning: a couple of the editors on that page appear to have a long-standing, in-real-life personal feud.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

External reading lists are not desirable, no. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on what? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a reading list from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, is a useful external link, for that article.

It might be even more useful to incorporate (some or all of) the list into a "Further reading" section of the article, though. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing has once again failed to mention her own long-standing involvement in this feud (she starts ancillary discussions like this as part of her gaming of the system). The appropriateness of this specific EL has to do with a controversial institution and a WP:SPA sexologist who works there. His sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote himself and his institution's controversial work, such as adding an EL to his own highly selective reading list on his own webpage. Lots of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and other information to be considered with this specific EL, so I recommend we all work together in one place to determine the best way to proceed. Details here. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that we are discussing a plurality of links[6][7], not just one, and a growing host of wikipedians that James Cantor is accusing of bias[8].BitterGrey (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The conversation appears to be active at Wikiproject Sexology. Editors that have responded here are encouraged to please move their comments to that discussion so that the discussion can benefit from the perspective of more people with no conflicts of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Jokestress' claim about my involvement in "this feud" is rather stretching things, since paraphilia isn't on my watchlist, and my involvement amounted to posting this note here, much like I've done for other similar questions in the past.

It's true that Jokestress disapproves of my reliance on reliable sources like The New York Times, instead of just taking Jokestress' word for it at other articles, though, and I'm sure that's been inconvenient for promoting the activist position.

But please: comments, to be useful, need to be at the real discussion, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, would you care to provide more detail regarding the claim that "a couple of the editors on that page appear to have a long-standing, in-real-life personal feud"[9]. If you are accusing us of bias or incivility, you should be specific about whom you are accusing and detailed in your claims. If not, why mention it at all?

By the way, those who really are "widely recognized" "world leaders" generally don't need to have their status constantly asserted. Specifically, they don't need to post "buy our article" links to multiple pages[10][11], and they don't need to write themselves into wikipedia articles, claiming to be notable [12].BitterGrey (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, s/he didn't accuse anyone of bias or incivility, so a challenge to defend accusations that s/he didn't make hardly seems fair. Dlabtot (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When the same comment was made about WhatamIdoing, WhatamIdoing thought a defense was necessary. I respect Jokestress for being specific about whom she was commenting about. I think it reasonable to ask WhatamIdoing to be equally respectable. BitterGrey (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BitterGrey, perhaps you'd like to read what Jokestress has written about James Cantor and reach your own conclusions about whether this is just a chance encounter between two random editors. Consider whether the average person creates webpages that disparage every possible out-of-context or different-POV statement that another person makes, or whether this is perhaps a sign of a more significant involvement. Jokestress is a trans activist who is personally and professionally dedicated to discrediting the current views of most sexologists about transwomen (e.g., James Cantor). Jokestress doesn't disagree with my characterization of it as a feud; the only point of difference between us is whether my agreement with Cantor in unrelated articles makes me a significant participant in it. (Also, since Jokestress is a transwoman, you might consider using "she" instead of "he" in your comments.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thanks for the correction regarding pronouns. Since you've brought up the past conflicts between Jokestress and James Cantor, upon whom you lavish such praise, I'd like to add my favorite antic. James Cantor (as James Cantor) emailed negative comments about a Jokestress to a blogger, who put that email on his or her blog. Then James Cantor (as Marion the Librarian) quoted this in a wikipedia article about Jokestress (a biography of a living person, no less) as a tertiary source, what "Some scholars" have written[13].

"Marion the Librarian" also edited the pedophilia article so that it described James Cantor as most notable[14]. A month later, Dicklyon discovered that Marion the Librarian (and WriteMakesRight, 99.231.67.224, 99.227.88.244, etc.) was actually James Cantor [15], concealing a conflict of interest.BitterGrey (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The only personal feud here is User:WhatamIdoing's long-running attempts to use Wikipedia to settle her personal grudge over my off-wiki actions. I'd characterize it as the most fixated anyone has ever been on me here on Wikipedia. Her disingenuous claim of non-involvement is part of a scheme she uses to win arguments on Wikipedia. She's quite adept at gaming the system by attempting to WP:canvass uninvolved editors via policy pages, but it's also quite transparent after you've seen her do it a dozen times. She's a bit of a time sink, so it's not really worth getting in long discussions about her behavior. Better to stay focused on content issues, as we are on the main discussion regarding this external link COI. Jokestress (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding canvasing, WhatamIdoing really should have joined ongoing conversations before starting this one, and after starting this one, really should have announced it at those ongoing conversations.BitterGrey (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an editor join a discussion before mentioning it to other editors. This requirement would be simply untenable: what if an editor doesn't have time? What if they have been topic-banned? What if they don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion? We'd end up with stupid notes like, "Hi, guys, I don't have anything to say, but I'm technically 'joining the conversation' so I can post a note about it at the relevant WikiProject."

There is also no requirement that an editor announce a note. If you'll notice, my goal was to not have a separate discussion about this link on this page, but to drive uninvolved editors to the pre-existing discussion. At various points, WP:CANVAS has encouraged editors that join the discussion to share their source ("I saw a note at the Village Pump about this, and..."), but announcing public announcements has never been required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EL discussion course (remedial Q)

Sorry in advance for the remedial question. Should contested ELs be:

1. discussed on the relevant article's talk page first, then maybe at a relevant project page, and then brought here if a consensus or resolution can't be reached in a reasonable time.
2. discussed here first, with maybe a pointer to here from the relevant article's talk page.
3. discussed in parallel at the relevant article, here, and maybe other relevant forums, maybe with pointers
4. some other sequence or combination?

Previously, I thought #1 was the answer, but given the previous discussion (#3) started by an apparent regular here, I might be wrong.BitterGrey (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They almost never should be discussed here. This is the talk page for the guideline, not individual links. The article talk page, then a Project is the right way to go. If that process completely collapses I can see asking for help here, but that should be very very very very very rare. 2005 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In practice, nearly all such disputes are resolved at the talk page for the article, without ever involving any other page.

If it can't be resolved through normal discussion, then this is the de facto noticeboard for disputes. (If you read above, there's discussion of creating a separate, formal "External links noticeboard", but none exists at the moment.)

Usually, the link is being contested at a single article, and the involvement here is limited to a single, short note to request help from additional editors on the article's talk page. Asking at a WikiProject is another good option -- if a relevant WikiProject is active and willing to deal with it, which is not always the case -- but it depends on the question. Personally, I'd ask questions about content at a WikiProject (e.g., is this webpage accurate?) and questions about the application of the guideline here (e.g., the URL says /blog/ in it, but it doesn't look like a blog to me, so does WP:ELNO #11 apply?).

Occasionally, a link is contested in a bunch of articles or is general in nature (e.g., "Why do so many editors delete links to MySpace pages?"), in which case this page is the usual "centralized" home for the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that 2005 sounds more right. This is clearly the talk page for an article documenting a guideline. The discussion about the EL in paraphilia, Sexology, etc. wasn't described as any having any bearing on that guideline. Additionally, my hunch is that the process of completely collapsing usually involves more than four days, especially with the long holiday weekend. If 2005 and myself are mistaken, I'd hope a few unbiased editors would let us know.BitterGrey (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:2005 and I don't actually disagree: I expanded on what he wrote. But I understand that you won't believe anything I tell you out of loyalty to Jokestress' negative opinion of me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to blame this on Jokestress. My impression of you is based on your posts and your contributions alone. The same goes for her. If Jokestress was quick to initiate what should be a "very very very very very rare" event, I'd be curios about why she did so too. By the way, I am pleased that you are becoming more specific in your personal accusations about assumptions of ill will.BitterGrey (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

no EL to search results? How you do you help people get stubs filled out? ????

Somone who likes to delete stuff went around and took out a bunch of EL I put in to help people get going on filling out stubs. These were generally links to google or specialized searches. While I appreciate anyone could type terms into these engines, it seemed to be a convenience at least for stubs. This is especially true if the stub is questionable on notability. What's the deal with this? Also, in the post tree killing era, while a "curated" set of facts that goes into the article is still a good idea, just freezing it at a time point is questionable. These shouldn't deprive search sites of revenue by repackaging their results nor should it lead readers into commercial or specific POV sources. But often recent updates are very important and "current events" while not of encyclopedic quality, certainly if not curated, are probably of interest to most people who found the article. If you already know the material, you don't need an encyclopedia. If you are learning, some general unbiased search terms may help ( most journal articles list keywords ) and full one-click access seems like a great addition that the paper pushers couldn't have accomodated. There is no reason for a wall of separation between article and recent results that potentially could be cited. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

People can do their own searches, there is absolutely no reason to have a link to search results in an article. Dlabtot (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Frequently links to search results are put on the TALK page of the article (in fact some templates do it automatically), and that's fine. But in an article? No way. DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Volunteers : On a stub, if you make it easy for knowledgeable but busy people they may contribute but an extra link can be a lot of effort. Further, there are specialized searches that can be reasonably selective. For example, a search on pubmed with a unique last name on a bio page is probably a good [ non-cuated] update. There is no reason to remove recent updates from a base article. I guess first I would distinguish stub from a real article, and include google links on the stub to get a "foot in the door" with volunteers and then further suggest that "recent updates" from things like USPTO search are quite relevant and a reasonable aid to the diligent reader. There is no reason to be a snob here, LOL. I was even going to suggest a SeachBot that ADDS search EL to articles that are in certain catagoies. Current events can not be the only reason for an article, but updates to an archival/encyclopedic quality topic are a reasonable aid to the reader. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I just don't see the value. Search engine results (particularly to non-specialized internet search engines like Google) are essentially worthless, IMO. I'm perfectly capable of asking Mr Google whatever I want to know. I'm also perfectly capable of doing the same at PubMed (which I use daily), the USPTO (which I use occasionally), and other places. It would be far better to pick the best external link from your search and post that instead.

BTW, journal articles list keywords so that the search engines will point readers at the article. They don't intend to suggest those terms for readers' use in their own searches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the objections above.

The specific advice you want, hinted at above, is to put one of these templates ({{Findsources}}, or {{Findsources3}}, or {{Findsourcesnotice}}, or {{Search}}) on the talkpage. (Just one, and do remember to check the template's links before saving, to verify that there are some valid results (and that the template works properly)). Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• The harm is? If I had the time to verify they were valid, I wouldn't leave the search link there and if I was here every second similarly. If the journals went to the effort of putting the keywords in so search engined would pick them up, then give a link to the search engines so the reader can find them. Certainly for stubs they may get a marginal contributor started. And, they do no harm. A possible contributor who finds the stub on google may or may not bother to go to talk page, hard to tell. Certainly if there are non-obvious searches it could be helpful. Not everything needs to be curated and few of these topics are stagnant or closed. An article can't be about current events but "stuff happens" and it may be worthwhile to just have a link. On the "real stubs" that may get a speedy delete because someone doesn't know the easy way to get relevant hits, they seem quite reasonable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dumping search results in an article has not proven to be an effective way of expanding articles. Doing that is very probably a waste of your time.

In terms of your other objections, such as deletions, then putting the link on the talk page is likely to be at least as useful, since an admin would certainly check the talk page before deleting the article and its talk page.

In the end, "non-curated" search results seem unencyclopedic to me (and apparently to others). Unreviewed search results (which is what you say you've been posting) are even worse. I have been considering your points with an open mind, but so far you've only confirmed my previously held view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries

Folks, I have seen some editors removing links to newspaper obituaries and the like from EL sections in biographical articles. Is there a consensus that such links are inappropriate? If so can someone please point me to the relevant discussion? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such discussion. They seem like they would make good reliable sources for use in developing the article directly, though, and that would be a preferable use (per WP:ELNO #1). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did have one such discussion at K. Pattabhi Jois with User:TheRingess. I had left the links in the article as possible sources with an {{expand further}} template. (This also has similarity to the "search results" discussion above, I guess.) After some back-and-forth, I ended up using most of the links as sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on application of ELNO #10 and 11

This page has an open RfC on whether an article about a tennis player should include a link to an unofficial fansite and to a Twitter feed.

Supporters of the links have asserted that the relevant rules (ELNO #10 and #11) favor the inclusion of unofficial fansites and Twitter feeds. The argument seems to be deteriorating into an ad hominem attack, bordering on WP:OUTING, against a newbie editor that opposes the links.

It's often difficult to get outside responses to RfCs, so I hope that many of the editors here will take a look at the links and the relevant rules (now pasted directly into the discussion), and provide their impartial advice on what's best for the article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you just lost a slice of reputation by wolf crying your exaggerated fear of ad hominem attacks and outing. There was a circumspect suggestion of COI against Chidel, and I asked a polite question of both newbs who created their Wikipedia-aware and tennis-interested accounts only three days apart.

Well, well, WhatDoYouKnow: one of the newbs, who posted here also, wasn't so new:

14 July 2009 (Block log); 04:28 . . YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Chidel (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock on open proxies)

Milo 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume from your reply that the balance of comments from uninvolved editors has not supported your personal position, but I haven't had time to check the page yet. If you have legitimate concerns about socking, then the correct page for the report is here. Otherwise, such attacks are blockable offenses, and I suggest that you stop making them (if you were the person making them; I confess that I paid more attention to what was said than to who said it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Always interesting when someone comes to a completely unrelated different forum and throws out an ad hominem personal attack by way of accusing someone else of falsely claiming there's been ad hominem personal attacks. That's a rather ... unique strategy. Eaglizard (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: the actual title of said RfC is "RFC:How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?", which is clearly a discussion of general policy, and not specific to tennis or anything else. That discussion is best resolved on this page, and not on Talk:Andy Murray. Eaglizard (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy section?

Regarding this edit, I've got a few puzzled questions/comments:

1. Since when do we have policy sections? Maybe I've just missed them until now, but that seems rather odd to me.
2. As the box was added without any prior consensus, I have removed it again per WP:BRD. Adding a policy box anywhere requires a very clear consensus beforehand.
3. Now, to the issue itself: I understand the idea behind this, but I disagree with it. First of all, as I said above, having mere sections as policy seems confusing at best. Second, only the first point in that section (Wikipedia:Copyrights) is actually about policy. And even that is a summary of a policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works is policy, but that doesn't mean that we have to add a policy tag to every section that summarizes that (or any) policy. For instance, shouldn't we also add a policy box to Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view by that logic? Isn't it more than enough to mention in the text of the guideline that some parts of it are based on policy? --Conti|✉ 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I've never see a "policy" section in a guideline or vice versa. The first point about copyvios and how it is linked to a policy on copyrights is sufficient. The second point, spam links, is hard to say its policy, since determination of spam links is done on a case-by-case basis and really is more guidance than not. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the policy box because the subsection is a restatement of WP:LINKVIO policy. The precedent that led me to add the policy box was WP:FAIR#Policy, where a restatement of a policy on a guideline page is tagged as such. However, the situation is different on that page as the policy is actually transcluded. The objections you both raise are valid and I'm happy to chalk this up to an overly bold edit that should have been suggested on the talk page first. Personally I would not be averse to the idea of merging all aspects of WP:EL that fall under the scope of WP policies (i.e., aspects like LINKVIO and UNDUE that are standards and not advisory) to a Policies subsection. --Muchness (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE #4 contradicts arbitration ruling

It seems to me that ELMAYBE #4 clearly contradicts an arbitration ruling. Links to be considered #4

Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#External_links

Resources which are not sufficiently neutral or accurate to stand alone, but which nevertheless provide useful material, should similarly be incorporated into the article, where context and complementary material may be provided to address the problem of neutrality or accuracy. If this is not possible or not appropriate in the circumstances, then the resource should not be linked to.

"not sufficiently neutral or accurate to stand alone" sure sounds to me like something which fails WP:RS, yet ELMAYBE #4 says that kind of link should be considered for EL. Unless we can overturn this arbitration ruling, ELMAYBE #4 has to go. 83.199.254.171 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration "principles" are not binding on the community. As a matter of fact "principles" are supposed to be a summary of the community's position rather than a declaration of what policy should be. Dragons flight (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You are mistakenly conflating WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Also, even if there were a contradiction, Dragons flight is totally on point. ArbCom doesn't set policy. Dlabtot (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the external link guideline. Discussions about overall external link practices occur here. 2005 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

External links to fansites

Your opinions about whether and under what circumstances tennis biographies should include links to fansites would be welcome on the Andy Murray discussion page and at WP:tennis. Chidel (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel (talk · contribs) has been banned:

14 July 2009 (Block log); 04:28 . . YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Chidel (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock on open proxies)

Milo 05:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just have those people read WP:EL if they are confused. We generally don't link to fan sites, but sometimes one is fine. No need to discuss it two different places when we already have site-wide consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've determined that the underlying problem here is over-regulation.

WP:EL#ELNO#11 reads: "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a [WP:V#SPS] recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."

Notice how wordy it is – typical of attempts to force micromanagement regulation on many editors who do not consense to the guideline. A claim of consensus for this part of ELNO#11 should be investigated for a bully consensus imposed by a clique – or – a WP:OWNing WP:GANG.

Worse, ELNO#11 attempts to force WP:V#Self published sources and WP:Notability on external sites without authority-in-principle to do so: WP:V#SPS and WP:Notability are intended for article content, not external sites. Many self-published sites contain useful resources that WP articles can't include, from which readers would benefit – for example, copyrighted photographs used with permission.

Major fan sites are published by non-notable people, yet such sites become recognized by major media, influential blogs, or many comments by individuals. A guideline can't attempt to anticipate authorized means of successful publicity, because publicity is about "breaking out" of old rules that limit publicity. What really matters is the value of the external site per the other guidelines, and that can be determined by consensus.

The problem seems easily fixed. Rewrite WP:EL#ELNO#11 as: 'Links to ... most fansites, except by a consensus that they meet the other guidelines here.' Milo 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: ELNO #11 has been expanded because of repeated, explicit requests for clarification of the specific points that it elaborates on. Much of the text was originally in a footnote, but an editor wanted it in the text, and nobody objected enough to revert it.

"Consensus" (of the editors at a specific article) is exactly what has already failed if anyone is bothering to look at this guideline. If they all agree that a specific fansite (etc) link improves the article, then WP:IAR is all they need to know. If they don't agree, then this page tells them what the Wikipedia-wide community consensus on fansites (etc) in general is. Taken as a whole, the Wikipedia community has a long-standing consensus to reject links to fansites. This, like most guidelines, needs to be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. ELNO#11 covers "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites,". If repeated, explicit requests about fansites generate that much controversy and text, it is an important enough type of link to have its own numbered subsection not shadowed by the preceding two. Even when it is technically a personal web page written by one person, fansiting is a social phenomenon which has evolved beyond that simplistic categorization.

2. There is undoubtedly a consensus to avoid linking to non-useful or poor quality web pages, but a significant number of fansite-like sites are useful. ELNO#11 currently presumes fansites to be non-useful or poor quality, which leads to unnecessary discussion, conflict, and WP:GAMEing over the good ones. If one claims that this prescriptive presumption should have worked, descriptively it has not worked and needs to be revised as a guiderule consensus failure.

3. The algorithm you have proposed for local consensus to approve a fansite-like link includes WP:IAR. Any locally repeating process that is expected to invoke WP:IAR is de facto not a consensed process. That's proof of the need to overhaul ELNO#11 as no longer consensed (if it ever was; a bully consensus being counterfeit).

4. How can there exist a bone fide Wikipedia-wide community consensus on fansites if there is no clear definition of what exactly, is a fansite? (Also spelled "fan site" and "fan-site"). As Justice Potter Stewart on obscenity, 1964, one may think one knows a fansite when they see it; but, consensus and guiderules can't be understandable, or fair, or avoid cyclical conflict, without a definition that in practice separates useful sites from those which are non-useful. Maybe the "fansite" term should simply be dropped in favor of more objective terminology. Consider these views:

Escape Orbit (17:01, 15 July 2009):

"This side-steps arguments of what is, or isn't, a fan-site..."

David T Tokyo (06:29, 11 July 2009):

"For me, a key part of the problem here is the use of the word "fansite". Typically, fansites are poorly designed and constructed, woefully short on content, low on facts and high on opinion. I'm sure we've all seen those kind of sites and clicked away immediately. However, there is another kind of site, one that I believe is better described as a "factsite". These sites take a subject and attempt to be authoritative, objective, comprehensive and professional. In this respect they are poles apart from regular fansites."

User:2005 (09:50, 13 July 2009) has characterized Find A Grave as a fansite:

"One fansite, Find A Grave, has thousands of links, and while some of those links may not be very good, it is plainly obvious that a very large number of Wikipedia editors recognize that fansites should sometimes be linked."

Assuming that characterization to be possible – might be so – current ELNO#11 is dead. Milo 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• As Wikipedia is not a fansite but an encyclopedia, we don't link to fansites unless they provide an encyclopedic addition to an article. Copyrighted material, long lists of statistics, and official websites are acceptable since they are generally considered to contain valuable information which can not be presented any other way. If links don't have any encyclopedic relevance they shouldn't be linked to. I don't think most fan sites have encyclopedic relevance to the articles which they are commonly linked from. I find ELNO #11 a sound policy. ThemFromSpace 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ELNO#11 is not a useful guide because it doesn't explain what the characteristics of "most fan sites" are, or how they can be distinguished from a fan site with encyclopedic relevance. This causes other editors to unnecessarily dispute among themselves, and repeatedly waste discussion time trying to figure out whether ELNO#11 applies to a particular site or not. ELNO#11 needs to be rewritten to be helpful to them. Milo 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Milomedes, please try to make shorter posts that don't destroy the formatting of the pages. This thread is once again getting unreadable. As for your comments, it seems you are not understanding the guideline. If a fansite is a recognized authority, it can be linked. If not, then it can't. Really, you aren't making an argument that can be responded to because what you seem to be wanting is exactly what the guideline says. Also, here is what Wikipedia considers a fansite. Find A Grave, Wookiepedia, that train site we talked about a few weeks ago that I don't remember its name... those are all fansites, and they get linked because they can demonstrate authority. 2005 (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"destroy the formatting of the pages" Sigh. You just charged me with a blockable offense, when nothing of the kind happened. My post is compliant with WP:TALK. I request that you strike that false charge.

Previously you defamed an out editor in another section on this page. When a third editor complained about your behavior on your talk page, you blew him off with "rv nonsense".[16]

User:2005, while you aren't intending to cause trouble, your careless remarks combined with your willful refusal to strike them, is unacceptable editor behavior. A PA by careless accusation is bad enough, but a careless defamation is a threat to the Wikimedia Foundation. Even worse, you don't show any sign of contrition, retraction, or reforming.

You have the choice of following the good example set above by The Red Pen of Doom (01:44,),(15:48),(00:51),(02:57). Another choice is the "make me" philosophy of an Arbcom sanctioned editor on this page, but don't press your luck. Milo 06:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. 2005 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Make me" it is. Milo 09:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Milo, your "argument" had some critical non sequiturs, including (importantly) your erroneous leap to the conclusion that every question about ELNO #11 that has prompted a clarification was expressly about a fansite. In reality, most of the questions were about blogs.

If you've got (1) bona fide problems with understanding this (2) in a real article (3) for a website that you personally haven't discussed here, then please let us know. In the meantime, I'm in an "ain't broke, don't fix" state, bordering on WP:DFTT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"your erroneous leap to the conclusion" Nice riposte, but you missed and fell on your mask. My Milo (01:50, 1.) statement began with a conditional "If".

Even if most of the questions were about blogs, most of the ELNO#11 text is about fansites, and it's not working. As I wrote in Milo (5:40) above: "ELNO#11 is not a useful guide because it doesn't explain what the characteristics of "most fan sites" are, or how they can be distinguished from a fan site with encyclopedic relevance." I'm open to other solutions, but so far it appears that fansites, if that word or phrase is retained, may need its own section to explain it. It may be best to choose another word as David T Tokyo suggested.

WP:EL is broken in the case that started this thread, and it needs to be fixed. I've quoted David T Tokyo in Milo (01:50, 4.) about the key issue. The guide wasn't clear enough to prevent the expansion of this issue to four sections over two pages. Two participants implied complaints about the expansion [17][18]. Another participant thinks that external website rivalry was the motivation, but it's clear that lack of clarity in ELNO#11 is an enabler of the resulting dispute.

"I'm in an "ain't broke, don't fix" state bordering on WP:DFTT." I'm sensing willful blindness from you (and an uninformed insult). If so, you are choosing to make yourself irrelevant. I value your institutional memory of this page. Some of things you say are well worth considering and incorporating, and I've done so. But...

"If you've got ... problems with understanding this" You misunderstand our relationship. I'm not your supplicant, and you're not an imperator.

I've taken note of your previous behavior: so uncooperative about using your own nonstandard formatting that you trashed your own proposal – part of which I was willing to support.

I've also read your user page, and I've presented issues in a way that you generally claim to be able to handle. You have not been able to handle them. Probably not because you are completely unable, but because you don't want to (due to group page WP:OWNership and NIH), combined with an inability to focus (trashed your own proposal). I think I know why you can't focus, and you've heard it before, so enough said about that. Milo 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Milo, you incorrectly assert that "most of the ELNO#11 text is about fansites". This is simply not true. ELNO #11 is equally about blogs and personal websites. The "except" clause applies to all three kinds of pages, not merely the last type in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#11 exposed as an unauthorized fork

←WhatamIdoing (17:09): "The "except" clause applies to all three kinds of pages, not merely the last type in the list."
It's ambiguously phrased, so that's possible (or actual, if you know of the rulecrafting intent). No doubt that it's yet another uncertainty that needs to be fixed.

If the latter text also applies to blogs and personal websites, ELNO#11 is even more dysfunctional than I thought. The "[WP:V#SPS] recognized authority" provision, is a crypto-reliable-sources requirement, which contradicts WP:EL#Links to be considered#4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

WP:EL has no mandate to erase the practical distinction between reliable sources and external links of all three types. Lacking a mandate, this ELNO#11 latter text is a policy/guide POV fork of WP:V/WP:RS.

The fork's construction also suggests a cover-up of forking. The fork is disguised by using the weasely, wikilawyering, inscrutably-linked wikitext phrase:
"[[WP:V#SPS|recognized authority]]").

Being a fork it must be fixed, since WP policy/guide forks are strongly disconsensed (see this MfD'd example: WP:MfD/WP:Discuss and Vote). In consequence, any consensus here that external links should be reliable sources – defaults to deletion of ELNO#11's latter text – as any such proposal must be made at WP:RS or WP:V. One of WT:EL regular editors' favorite games to oppose change, stonewalling, won't save ELNO#11 either. Enforcement against policy/guide forks is accomplished by MfD as linked above.

Now, if you want to be relevant, let's work together to rewrite ELNO#11.
Milo 05:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that it is in any way ambiguous and I don't think it needs re-writing. Dlabtot (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the previous post to make clear what ambiguity is being discussed. Specifically, it's ambiguous whether the "except" clause applies only to the third element in the series ("fansites"), or applies to all three elements in the series ("blogs", "personal web pages", and "fansites"). Milo 09:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It applies to all. I don't know what your native tongue is, but in English, this is not at all ambiguous. Dlabtot (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how it can be viewed as ambiguous, and it's certainly no fork, but I suppose the "except" part could be put at the beginning of the sentence instead of at the end. 2005 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:2005 (10:48): "..."except" part could be put at the beginning..." Yes, that would work – if the run-on parenthetical clause is modified enough to place in a second sentence. Milo 19:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

←User:2005 (10:48): "...it's certainly no fork..." My reasoning is summarized as follows:

(1) External links are neither sources nor reliable sources.

(2) ELNO#11 erases the distinction of three types of external links from reliable sources.

(3) All reliable source rules must created at WP:V or WP:RS (their mandate).

(4) Creating reliable source rules elsewhere is a fork of WP:V and/or WP:RS.

(5) ELNO#11 attempts to cover-up the fork, which is evidence of intentionally unauthorized forking.

Milo 19:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated in it numerous times, this guideline has nothing to do with sources or references, so it is impossible to have a fork. Aside from that ELNO#11 doesn't say anything at all about reliable sources, so in particular no fork is even possible there. 2005 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If your statement is final, that is the stonewall position which may result in an MfD, at which you will get one vote. Hopefully other editors will avoid an MfD by negotiating a rewrite. Milo 22:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What???? 2005 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many times we're going to have to put "This guideline has nothing to do with links to sources that are used to support information in an article. Those questions should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard." on this page before anyone will read it. Milo, the page addresses this specious concern repeatedly:

• "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources"
• "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section."
• "Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline..."
• "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles."

If you still think that this page is trying to control reliable sources for article content, please let me know. Oh, and keep this in mind when you try to argue that the page needs to be re-written to reduce redundancy, because this information is on the page at least four times, and you still didn't get it. (And, no, you're definitely not the first editor to completely ignore WP:ELPOINTS #1 and complain about WP:EL restricting the use of reliable sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The real problem

OK, I've been trying to follow this discussion, and it seems to me that the biggest problem here is not so much what ELNO #11 says (though I would probably agree with Milo that it is too wordy), but the title and opening line of the section. "Links normally to be avoided" and "one should avoid" is a rather authoritative tone, even though this is merely a guideline. How about changing the section title to something like "Links of which to be wary", and re-doing the opening sentence. Maybe even merge ELNO with the sections above into a list of positives and negatives when considering External Links. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with this change. Most all of the link types in the ELNO section provide no encyclopedic reference and generally don't improve the quality of an article. Yes, it is rather authoritative-sounding, but to me it is calling a spade a spade. We should aim for as few external links as possible, with all of the good content being within cited within our articles. We should only link externally when we would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia not to. ThemFromSpace 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The guideline has long suffered from one-issue people coming in and wanting some CREEPy thing or other added, to the point certain aspects are repeated many times. External links should not have stolen shit, not harm a computer, and should offer something either reliable or authorative that isn't integrated into the article. Anything more than that is basically yacking redundancy, but it is clear some editors need/want certain things called out. This causes almost as many problems as it solves, but the guideline now is clear and relatively non-controversial. On the other hand, ELMAYBE 1,2,4 are weirdly mealy-mouthed nothingism. They don't do any harm, but they don't do any good. They are just left over CREEP. ELNO does offer some good general principles, the malware one most obviously, and ELNO13 for another. ELNO 10,11,12 basically just restate the rest of the guideline using specifics. This occurs largely because of the influence of single-idea editors wanting their "thing" mentioned specifically, but for the most part it's just restating that websites need to have merit to be linked while warning that certain classes of websites are more likely to deserve scrutinity in terms of their merit. Anyway, I'd be glad to see ELNO changed to "Linking issues", since "no" is not total right and neither is "wary" (as malware should never be linked). 2005 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

←I'll consense to a complete rewrite of the ELNO section. One of the things that needs to precede a rewrite is deciding the principles of the section. This should be done the way that Arbcom votes on proposed arbitration statements. Milo 22:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that any problem exists at all. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that there's no problem here. These links should, subject to "common sense and the occasional exception", be avoided. Not "prohibited", but "avoided". Not "always", but "usually". This situation appears to accurately reflect the widespread and long-standing consensus.

I also disagree, sort of, with User:2005's assessment. Yes, in an ideal world, with uniformly intelligent and experienced editors, detailed lists would be unimportant. But this list wasn't written for the User:2005's of Wikipedia; it was written for the agenda-driven newbies that grasp at any possible excuse to do what they want anyway. It's much easier to say "No, you can't link your personal blog" than to spend six paragraphs explaining general principles and four days, times every single contested link, explaining how these principles apply in particularly common situations. (And that, IMO, is the realistic alternative.)

As a separate matter: since editors routinely refer to these items by number, breaking the numbering scheme should be strongly avoided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Recently I've removed a number of external links from Spanish articles. Some of these have been blatant spam in the form of holiday rentals / real estate agencies but some have been less clear cut. One removal that has been reverted is this one which looked innocent enough on the surface but contains sections which promote local properties. Could someone confirm that links such as that are indeed spam? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like a website that exists primarily to sell stuff, and thus ELNO #5 applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole site is not clear cut dedicated to promote properties, indeed the site contains one section which exist to make money from the readers, yet, it also has four more informational sections. Seems to me based on percentage, the purpose of the site itself is informational. DMOZ has listed the site under Malaga: Guides & Directories section. Asides the link in question is not to this one but actually this one whose main objective is to provide article related information. The fact that the linked page has itself links to other sections dedicated to make money should'nt be an indicative for spam, as most sites do have this sort of links or advertisements (unless they were in an objectionable amount). In this specific case, the actual "web page" beeing linked: actually this one does not in any way "mostly promote or advertise" anything, just provides the reader with interestingly enough information related to the article not to be found on one single web page elsewhere. Thus ELNO #5 does not apply. Nstiac (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"unfurtunately most of it is in spanish" (quote from the site) If the site cannot be trusted to have basic correct grammar and spelling, it seems unlikely that we should consider it a trustworthy site for content. Its primary purpose is clearly commercial and the stuff that is not there explicitly to sell is there to promo the area that the commercial material sits, clearly WP:NPOV violations.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the specific page is probably okay for an article about the specific place that the website is about, and otherwise seems justifiable (e.g., is on-topic, doesn't mislead the reader with factually inaccurate information, doesn't simply repeat content in the article [or content that should be in the article], isn't redundant with a similar link, that kind of thing).

I'm not saying that I heartily recommend it, just that it's probably not prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions about an external link--Proof66.com

Apologies in advance for naive errors of etiquette.

I'd like an opinion on external links. I recently had a discussion with Ronz about adding external links to Proof66.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#More_on_Proof66)--a website which I own and I agree that I am already on shaky ground with some policies.

That being said, I have the following case to make.

• I am not attempting to boost Google page ranks (it is impossible anyway) nor am I profiting by any sort of retail activity.
• The website is designed to provide further and deeper information about the quality and independent judging results of spirits. These are already occasionally referenced--but sporadically--throughout wikipedia today. See for example El Tesoro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Tesoro_tequila, which has a complete list up to 2008 but is no longer current, and Grand Marnier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Marnier, which invokes a couple of different medals but is a very incomplete list.
• Ronz rightly points out that many of these competitions are for self-promotional purposes. This is not the case--at least not in the competitions we've selected. They are independent panels of experts that taste blind and do not accept payment from producers. See, for example, Anthony Dias Blue.
• Many users seeking more information about a particular spirit will be naturally curious about ratings and results of independent judges just as users are casually interested in grammys for records or starred reviews from Publishers Weekly. This is, perhaps, more appropriate for other avenues than Wikipedia itself.

The obvious question is, Why not merely improve the article on wikipedia with this list of awards as has already been attempted by the examples you yourself cite above?

The answer lies in the format of Wikipedia itself. It is, by nature, aimed mainly at producers. For example, Glenlivet's entry is (rightly) about the Glenlivet disitllery and gives scant attention to the incidental and mutable "expressions" of whisky coming out of it. Moreover, the list of entries from the combined institutions is long and--if we were to update the award for each expression coming out of the distillery--would lead to unnaturally large and unwieldy articles. In short, an eyesore and undesirable for many parties involved. As an example, Glenlivet would have six expressions comprising a total of twenty-eight awards. That is a substantial list of bullet points! I feel the purpose of directing readers to these awards is better served by an external link they follow if and only if they are interested.

This merely follows the practice of linking to other resource websites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, oscar nominations, or any website devoted to additional information.

There is a laudable effort to constrain the number of external links (though I myself often find them a joy to follow). But that effort does not, in my opinion, apply in cases where contributors are making honest efforst to improve the value of the article. This can be done not only by text in the article itself but also by external linking to resources that are outside of the scope of an encycolpedia article.

I appreciate your thoughts and will adhere to recommendations. Phizbin (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

There is an already existing precedent on this that has been established at the Beer WikiProject regarding the usage of non-sponsored rating sites to establish information on beer. Sites listed on the beer rating page are a good example of these types of websites. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether weather

Template:US-airport-mil (and others? I haven't looked) includes a link to current weather conditions. I know that this is generally deprecated for non-airport locations (the weather at this precise moment, as opposed to a description of the year-round climate, is non-encyclopedic), but what about for airports? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The main list of templates appears to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Templates. All the major US templates seem to include weather links, and seem to have done so for years. Seems like a legitimate exception to the 'rule', and not a problem, imo. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

external link not highlighted

I am the editor of a website for information about the village of Athens, New York. As I saw Athens was included in Wikipedia, I attempted to add a link to the site: www.athensny.org but was unable to make it blue highlighted words that would take the visitor to the site. I tried using the external link widget in the toolbar but apparently without success.

you can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_(town),_New_York

advice appreciated, thanks, Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith rodan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You must use the full address including the http:// bit, ie http://www.athensny.org. To show different link text use this code - [http://www.athensny.org link name], to render as link name. However, I have deleted the link you placed slap bang in the middle of history section as that is not the correct place for it - the external links section is the correct place. I have not put it thee yet as I am not convinced that it is an appropriate external link per WP:EL. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

gomolo.in

There are a number of templates that have been created to link to this site [19] . Is the consensus that this is a generally valid external link or is this just a spamfest promotion and the templates should be deleted? [20] [21] -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I see most of the pages linked to are pretty poor quality. Apparently the site is attempting to be the Bengali Cinema IMDb, but since the article about the website itself is up for afd, it seems like the template should be deleted, and if the article is deleted the templates should be 100% deleted by definition. Also, this site is linked to hundreds of articles which seems absurd at first look. 2005 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC

Ditto what 2005 said. Seems more like a spamfest of a baby site trying to make itself "notable" by becoming a templated link here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Without saying anything about the merits of the links, "being notable" is not a requirement for websites linked under this guideline. Consequently, the AfD on the article about the website has no bearing on the appropriateness of external links to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the question. Some pages could still possibly be linked on a non-notable website, but a non-notable website should never have a template. This guideline really should address the ability of anyone to create external link templates to any piece of junk site someone chooses, but in any case at this point there are many, many websites that have articles and no templates. If there are any other websites that don't merit articles but have freaking templates, those should be deleted. (There may not even be any others tho.) 2005 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad line of reasoning, but AFAIK, no such rule actually exists, and non-existent rules cannot be invoked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, with respect to all comment I am questioning you , why are call gomolo is not RS. I don't understand.I am working arround Bengali Cinema and cinema list cast crew etc. Yes I created two template Gomolo name Gomolo title as like imdb. If it will be proved that this is really not RS, I should not used as a external links. But first proved that it is not RS. Dear AnmaFinotera why are comment its a spamfest. Please explain. I am not so techsavy as you.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. Nobody here has said anything about whether or not Gomolo.in is a reliable source. External links do not have to be reliable sources, as is clearly stated at least four times in this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

please see User talk:Jayantanth#gomolo_is_not_a_reliable_source- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

gomolo has also been attempted to be used as a source for article content. The above poster appears to be concerned about maintaining links to gomolo in all forms.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the template, article and links have been added for the primary purpose of promoting gomolo.in, not as a service to our readers. particularly disturbing is the scope of breadth of the abuse. There seems to be obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. delete and de-link. IMHO Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#gomolo.in_Spam--Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"primary purpose of promoting gomolo.in, not as a service to our readers" Spam? Not unless Imdb is spam. A movie database is probably exempt from that charge.

"scope of breadth" Nah, that's normal for many movies to have links to a movie database.

I see a COI case against Vuttaa (talk · contribs) due to the same name being the email username of the registrant of Gomolo.in. AGF, Vuttaa may not be aware of the WP:COI declaration and editing requirements. So inform him and give him a chance to declare COI.

Could be that this justifies checkuser for the others you've listed; wait and see what CU has to say about them if anything. Milo 06:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If it truly spam I should not use in future any article and please advice me how to delete all links from article. I clearly mention that I did not add gomolo links to promoting gomolo.in. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One way is to type gomolo into the search engine and press "search" it will give a list of the articles that contain gomolo and you can start removing it from the ones where it is not properly used. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat more direct way is to use Special:Linksearch. The linksearch page is a little picky about the format; I suggest putting *.gomolo.in in the box. Also, anything that was templated can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Gomolo_name and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Gomolo_title. These should (I think) cover all the instances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention anyone's real life name here, but do you know user:Vuttaa off-wiki? Milo 06:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Dirk Beetstra seems to have cleared you [22].

Jayantanth has made a lot of edits linking a lot of domains because, well, he's an editor.

Dirk Beetstra has COI doubts about a couple of other editors with small or unclear edit counts, but so far Vuttaa seems to be the only editor who needs COI counseling. AGF, Vuttaa appears to be a busy professional businessman, who may well be unaware of WP:COI policies. Vuttaa should be respectfully informed of the policies, then asked to declare his COI and follow the COI editing rules.

The "scope of breadth" spam case seems to have shrunk to edits by Vuttaa, who made only 1/3 of the Gomolo.in edits that Jayantanth did. Since altogether nine editors have made Gomolo.in edits, and Gomolo.in is like Imdb, there's no evidence that Gomolo.in external links are spam. Milo 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to publications by political parties?

A minor edit war has broken out on Egremont, Cumbria where User:Chacufc has been adding in a link to [23], "Labour's Voice in Egremont & District", and User:Charlesdrakew has been reverting citing the External Links policy. Current policy does not make it ultra-clear to me whether or not this link is acceptable (though I have my own views on its acceptability). Input would be helpful. Regards, -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that it's run by a political group is relatively unimportant. The problem with the link is that it doesn't tell you anything about the specific geographic location (i.e., the subject of the article). Perhaps other editors will take a look and give an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok to have a navbox consisting solely of external links?

See Metzora (parsha) which has a navbox consisting solely of external links - 26 of them in fact, which seems excessive to say the least, and I believe a number of them probably fail WP:EL as well. There are quite a few articles with this navbox in them, or similar navboxes. All, I think, created by the same editor last year, this is one I dismantled but has been restored to what the editor calls "series form". Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. Looking at the article, it's not at all clear that those are external links. Dlabtot (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be deleted, seems its not even a legit navebox, just full of links for that article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you have so many EL's you need a navbox... you need to trim the EL's. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked user:Dauster to join this discussion as he is the one who created these navboxes. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"No" is my answer too. In fact I don't think there is a place for ELs anywhere in the main nav section of a navbox. I have been having a similar issue at {{DuPont}} where a couple of editors have been adding (and I have been reverting) ELs to DuPont-related stuff that does not have its own article on Wikipedia. My argument is that a navbox is to aid with navigation to related articles on Wikipedia, not to external websites. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Should external links be permitted in any navbox? (They're very widely used in infoboxes, but offhand I can't think of any in navboxes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No links should not be permitted in navboxes, as the navbox is for inter-Wikipedia article navigation.--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, no, and no. I just stumbled on this one Template:Patient safety organizations as well - now at TfD. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So does anyone mind if we remove "or navbox" from WP:ELPOINTS #2? (I have no idea how that crawled in there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It's weird it has been in there. 2005 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been struck. We'll see if anyone reverts. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It was added in on this edit by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) with an edit summary of "fix grammar". --Farix (Talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrible mess. It appears the inappropriate navbox was added simply because the external links are wildly out of control. 3/4 of them need to be deleted. More to the general point, I suppose we should add one sentence here that external links never are allowed in nav boxes... or more exactly, we need to delete where the guideline does allow them in nav boxes now, but I can't imagine how that can be justified since ELs are the opposite of "navigation". 2005 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

proposals

How about a small new section, placed underneath ==How to link==:

==Where to link==

External links (i.e., those links to other websites that are not used to verify the content) may be placed:

1. at the end of the article, under the title External links
2. in certain infoboxes
3. at the top of the article's the last section (whatever that section is), if the only external links listed use a graphical template to link to Wikimedia sister projects

External links are not generally accepted in any other place in an article, such as in a navbox or in the middle of the article's text.

I'm sure the text could be improved, but what do you think about the general idea?

(IMO the most important point is the last phrase: to discourage all of those people that turn legitimate mention of a company's name in an article into external links to the company website (e.g., changing "Apple, Inc. announced this iPod in 2009" into "Apple, Inc. announced this iPod in 2009"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea and clarifies what should be standard practice anyway. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, concept is excellent, wording needs work. How about:

==Where to link==

External links (i.e., those links to other websites that are not used as citations to verify content) may be placed:

1. at the end of the article, in an External links section
2. in certain infoboxes (see relevant infobox documentation)
3. in the the last section of an article (whatever that section is), if the external links are in a graphical template to link to Wikimedia sister projects

External links should not usually be placed anywhere else in an article, such as in a navbox or in the middle of the article's text.  – ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like #1 and #2, but #3 is more complicated than that. The decision tree runs something like this:

• Does ==EL== already exist (for non-sister links)? If so, place sister links in that section, even if that section is not the last one on the page.
• If ==EL== does not exist, are you using big graphical templates (e.g., {{Wikisource}}, or inline links (e.g., {{Wikisource-inline}})?
  • For big graphical templates, put them at the top of the last section. (Placing them at the bottom of a section looks very strange, because these templates "hang down" from their insertion point.)
  • For inline links, create an ==EL== section and place them there.

We can't rely on articles always following the order recommended by WP:LAYOUT; when it exists, ==External links== should always be the home for these templates, but it is not always the last section on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

access dates are not appropriate in the external links section

why not? Jaydlewis (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The content of web pages can change. The purpose of an access date in a web citation is to say when the cited page was known to support the information it is used for. An external links section is not used for citations so access dates are not needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what is being linked. If access date could be helpful, then it's worth adding, though probably as a hidden comment. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Registration requirements vs. referral links

ELNO 17 as of today:

Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful use a neutral link without the tracking information.

This appears to conflict with ELNO 6 as of today:

Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below.

Notably, The New York Times has been known to use the referral argument as a password of sorts to skip its registration requirement. Would it be wise to amend 17 as follows?

Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information, unless the source requires payment or registration if no referral link is provided.

I would be bold if this were an article, but the last time I was bold on a policy or guideline, I got reverted for no consensus. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "source" in there makes me wonder whether you're fully aware that this guideline is about links listed under ==External links== and not those reliable sources that are used to build article content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "source" is not mine; it's in the guideline as it stands today. But now that I think about it, "or the link is a convenience link to a citation" should cover some of it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge from WP:Linking

Wikipedia:Linking#External links should be merged into this article. Wikipedia:Linking has the overarching name, because most principles that hold for internal links also hold for external links, but in practice there is not much overlap, since it is rare that external links appear in the text body like an internal link. Please check that every detail mentioned in that section is covered here. This is important, even if we decide not to merge, because this is the more specific article, where people turn to for detail information. — Sebastian 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Linking#External links appears to be a WP:SUMMARY of this page, with a few additional points about embedded links being used as references. A "merge" therefore looks an awful lot like "delete it from the other page, and make no changes here".

I'm not sure that deleting it from the other page would be a service to anyone, but I am sure that this decision should be made at the only page that would be affected by the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe it would mean "make no changes here"? I think we agree that this is the more specific article, to which people turn for detail information. What reason is there for the additional points to appear in the summary article, and not in the specific one? — Sebastian 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the set of information that: (1) should be in WP:EL (2) is not already in WP:EL and (3) is in WP#Linking#External links is the null set.

The other page includes information about "external links" that does not belong in WP:EL, because it's about using external links as references. This page repeatedly says that you have to look elsewhere for linking reliable sources to use as references for article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good! It sounds as if your primary concern is to keep WP:EL the way it is, to which I have no objection. You also seem to be concerned that the request to change to WP:LINK might get overlooked there. To address your second concern, I will post a note there (unless Milo does so first). I'll also make sure that the external links information is already included in references for article content. Does that cover all your concerns? — Sebastian 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in practical agreement, though perhaps my reasoning and suggested actions are somewhat different. I noticed the related "Build the web" issue while doing research last month, so I've already given this some thought.

1. WP:Linking is unable to – and therefore should not – overarch. The reason is that internal versus external links are vastly different in guiding needs. External links are not only different, but sufficiently contentious that no attempt should be made to guide both in a single page. The further reason is that Wikipedians are on both sides of internal links; but, on the other side of external links are non-WPs, who frequently require diplomacy with sensitivity to their WP-unrelated policies. A summary of WP:EL should be avoided as being misleadingly general about many sharply specific cases.
2. Accordingly, WP:Linking should be renamed WP:Internal links (over the current Help:Contents/Links redirect) WP:Link styling, and the external links material should be merged to WP:EL.
3. For a very general overarching, WP:Build the web should be restored as a titled, mandated link construction philosophy that it originally was before it got confused with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (WP:MOSLINK), a superficial style concept. Deprecating "Build the web" from a title to a trivially quoted phrase may be either a symptom or a driver of a POV shift toward Wikipedia isolationism from the external W3 web. If it is a driver, restoration of WP:BTW should reverse the negative trend.

Milo 01:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Reformatted 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Re-edited 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC) By request to facilitate Sebastian's proposal, please focus on point 1 in the background context of points 2 & 3. If/when appropriate, the discussion can be {{Moved conversation}} to WT:Linking to focus discussion on points 2 & 3. 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - It turns out, my fears were unfounded, as the discussion was much less lively than I anticipated. But I think it's a good idea to move the discussion to WT:Linking. That should also address WhatamIdoing's concern about there not being enough discussion on that page. — Sebastian 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let's rethink your proposal.

WhatamIdoing (21:22) wrote: "WP:Linking#External links appears to be a WP:SUMMARY of this page..." That seemed to agree with your proposal to move the external links material here (perhaps move some polished general language), so I accepted both at face value. Then WhatamIdoing (03:21) wrote: "Because the set of information that: (1) should be in WP:EL (2) is not already in WP:EL and (3) is in WP#Linking#External links is the null set." That's mathspeak meaning there's nothing to move, so I reexamined my assumptions.

Examining WP:Linking#External links, I don't think it is a WP:SUMMARY of WP:EL as WhatamIdoing suggested, nor do I now think WP:Linking is really about "WP:Internal links" as I proposed to rename in point 2 above. I now think that it is a guide page about link styling or formatting.

It's reasonable to cover link formatting styles of both internal links, and external links for the External links article sections, on the same page. They are each no more contentious than other style issues. As to whether it makes sense to guide external links used in references at WP:Linking, rather than at WP:CITE, I haven't studied that. Maybe you should think about whether to propose moving the external links in references material to WP:CITE or a related page.

I still think WP:Linking got misnamed partly because of confusing it with WP:BTW as I described in point 3 above, but WP:Linking seems essentially the same page as it was formerly named, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (WP:MOSLINK). That former named purview may reasonably overarch link style, but not link use. Since the title "WP:Linking" confused me, and possibly other editors in this discussion, as to guide coverage of use vs. style, I've changed my proposal in point 2 above to rename WP:Linking to WP:Link styling. Milo 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We should systematize the way in which encyclopedic, Public Domain sources are identified and integrated

I put this proposal on another page, but someone told me it didn't belong there. Exiled, it settles here.

As you know, much of Wikipedia's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources. (For example: articles marked with {{1911}} contain stuff from the 1911 Britannica; similar sources have been listed here. For a journalist's description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article.)

I think we should try to systematize the process by which these special sources are identified, assigned to articles, and then incorporated into these articles. If we did so, this content would be incorporated into Wikipedia at a much faster rate, and yet also in a more controlled and supervised fashion.

I created a template that performs these functions in a rudimentary way. This is only a proof of concept; I just am looking to find people who might collaborate with me to improve this system.

You insert {{refideas}} at the top of an article's discussion page, and include a hyperlink to one or more of these special sources. The text of the template reminds editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright.

Here's the important part: these pages are automatically aggregated in a single category. Hopefully, some people will view this category as a "portal" pointing to articles where they can make mindless, yet high-quality, contributions. For example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles using this Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using {{CRS}}, a new template created for the purpose. I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles on this list will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever -- simply by copying, pasting, and citing.

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As this guideline says, it has nothing to do with sources, so this is definitely not the place to discuss this. 2005 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this page, and you've already posted this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you feel the need to call further attention to it, point to the original discussion rather than repeating it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You might try the WP:Village Pump, which has a page for proposals and for stuff that you can't figure out who might be interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of type of software

Wondering about standards for 'Comparison of type of software' articles, (i.e. Comparison of WAMPs, Comparison of browser synchronizers). These articles are regularly hit with the {{externallinks}} tag, but it seems that since they list multiple products, it seems natural to a have one link per product. Some comparisons use internal links where available, but it there seems to be a lower standard of notability to be included on these comparison tables - as many are products are listed that don't have their own wiki-article. I was thinking that perhaps the guideline should be to have one 'external link' allowed per product on these comparisons. Even for the products that have their own article, I imagine a web viewer upon viewing this comparison, might want to select a certain product for trial or download. Hope this starts some conversation.Cander0000 (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got a bit of link bloat there. Good external links for a "comparison of" article are links that actually compare things, not just the things themselves. You might want product reviews that actually compare things, like a "We tested every 10 gig hard drive on the market, and here's our results" kind of link -- not a long list of every hard drive manufacturer (which could result in many dozens of links).

Keep in mind that the point is not to provide readers with the kind of "Microsoft PowerPoint is a registered trademark of..." kind of disclosure list, or a handy web directory. It's to get them more information on the precise subject (which, again, is the comparison itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but good, bad, or indifferent, these 'Comparison of type of software' articles are essentialy lists of things with objective factors - price, performance, etc. I'm not seeing that would ever get the scholary attention that say, Comparison of religious beliefs would have. Ripping out the product lists would essentially blank the articles, and there's just not much narrative, analytical comparison text that would fill in the article. Perhaps 'Comparison of' is a misnomer. I'm inclined to be WP:Bold and propose a standard of one 'official' url per product 'compared', only 'notable' products listed (evidenced by them having a full wikipedia article) and more description of methodology of comparison. hopefully would gather more thoughts first. Cander0000 (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you restrict the contents of such articles to software that has a Wikipedia article (as opposed to any software that is mentioned by a reliable source in this context, which is the default standard), then you don't need any external links (in the comparison article) at all, because the official website for the software is linked (or should be) at the article about the software itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point! if the criteria for inclusion is broader - 'mentioned by a reliable source' - then setting a standard of having an external link to the product becomes clearer, but if the product mentioned already has its own article, no external link is needed?Cander0000 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In biographies of living people - spirit of BLP

"The spirit of BLP" is a potentially confusing phrase and subject to misinterpretation. For example it would be hard or impossible to defend a link against an accusation that a link is "against the spirit of BLP" when inclusion may actually be supported by the "text of BLP". Would anyone like to clarify this statement?—Ash (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a current dispute involving a misunderstanding of this phrase? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just unsure of how I would explain it to another editor if I referenced this guidance and were challenged.—Ash (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

spam or template needed?

http://*.websters-online-dictionary.org/ 358 links, is that spam? --213.168.121.113 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I suspect that nearly all of those are being used as references to a reliable source to support verified content in articles, which is exactly what this page has nothing to do with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube vs. "video sharing sites"

I suggest that we should remove explicit references to the name YouTube because YT does not have a monopoly on video sharing. YT has improved its process of removing copyright violations and now provides full-length videos that are obviously with permissions through new features such as http://www.youtube.com/shows . The problem is with "video sharing" in general, even with an individual sharing a single video from a personal web site.--Writelabor (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've revert your attempted removals. Your removal in light of your YT template being deleted is, at best, inappropriate, and at worse, pointed vandalism in an attempt to save your template. The issue of linking to YouTube is not just copyright, nor has YT improved its process all that much. The bulk of YouTube videos are still copyright violations and it is the most popular video site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply equating YouTube with "bad for WP:EL" is dumb. The guideline should apply to all shared videos. Even simply saying that everything in Category:Video hosting is the "bad stuff" is also dumb. It is easy, but it is dumb. Clearly, the guideline should be written so that the intent is clear, rather than just saying that this-or-that site is bad.--Writelabor (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lessee here, the section is called "Linking to user-submitted video sites", and the text obsessively refers to these kinds of sites with inclusive language, like "YouTube or similar sites". So what's the actual problem here? Surely our editors can understand that this section applies every bit as much to non-YouTube video sharing sites as it does to YouTube itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs vs news media

While I'm at it, the prohibition on blogs needs some qualification in arenas where the mainstream media has major shortcomings, or even policies of "private censorship", or where that media is state-controlled. It's not just a question of notability, e.g. a reporter's blog such as http://billtieleman.blogspot.org or http://transmontanus.blogspot.com, which are from two notable reporters in British Columbia, the latter writing very often on global issues; but they are notable in wiki terms. But there are a few dozen sites or more in CAnada which pick up the slack left by the editorial narrowness of the mainstream media, especially in cases like the BC Legislature Raids trial, or the Donald Marshall case and continentalization - http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com (aka the BC Mary blog - though Mary, whether she likes it or not, is approaching "notability" in Wiki terms - and http://www.vivelecanada.ca; sites listed on the left on Mary's blogpage also qualify as "notable news sources". What I'm getting at is that blogs which are not personal, but are news-copy oriented, have a place in citations if the news items and facts in them are unavailable by any other means; in these cases because newspapers owned by Canwest Global are notoriously censored and controlled and in the habit also of being archly POV and misrepresentative of the facts. This is s much clearer situation with issues/places like Tibet or other places where the state-controlled media is unreliable or censored, but it happens in the so-called "First World" too. So the parameters of Article 11 should be fleshed out a bit further, rather than simply pointing to notability. It's similar to the personal site vs amateur history issue in the section previous; in this case the dichotomoy is between "citizen journalism" and "yellow journalism".....Skookum1 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean here, that these blogs are the best reliable sources that we have (hence this would be something for the talkpage or the noticeboard there)? For as far as I see, the blog like that from Bill Tieleman could be linked from his page (official blog of subject), or do you mean to link specific posts on these blogs as external links on other pages (but then, would they not be better used as a source? I would expect that the whole blog would cover more than just the one subject where the link would fit, so then it needs to be a specific or some specific posts). Also, if there is good reason, then there is WP:IAR, if the blogspot is a good link, then just add it (with a good description and edit summary, and, if needed, a post to the talkpage). But maybe I misunderstand you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How to Apply WP:UNDUE to External Links

In light of overall EL criteria, #Avoid undue weight on particular points of view seems impractical as written. In a given article, it is quite possible that there will be only one suitable External Link and that link will support a minority viewpoint. This is because links supporting a majority viewpoint are all the more likely to be reliable sources which should be referenced in the article. The presence of an EL with a minority view does not mean that we should add 2 or more links which endorse the majority view just for the sake of having them.

The section in question appears to have originated as "What should be linked to" #4, when this page (and perhaps Wikipedia in general) barely distinguished between External Links and source citations. [24] Subsequently the mention of undue weight was added. [25] PSWG1920 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While the rare exception you mention is a valid point, that is no reason to remove the section, the basic point of shich is still completely valid. Another sentence briefly stating what you just said could be added, but for 99% of articles the paragraph is clear, useful guidance. 2005 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, it seems impractical to try to balance External Links against each other. Even if there are two equal points of view, you could end up with a very different number of suitable External Links for each, and you shouldn't leave out a good one or include a bad one just to achieve balance. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not at all impractical. All aspects of an article need to follow WP:UNDUE, including the external links section. What you've done is take a specific example where having a 'numerically balanced' el section is impossible (iow, no violation of WP:UNDUE to have only that link), and falsely extrapolated that into a general rule that el sections don't need to follow WP:UNDUE. Dlabtot (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that External Links should be exempt from WP:UNDUE, just that the section in question is hugely flawed. I considered just removing the "number of links" statement, but then nothing else there would make sense. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that I understand the concern, but I'm not sure that any "fix" is going to be better than what we have. Do we have an active dispute in a real article here, or are we wishing problems into existence simply because we can? (If so, may I suggest finding something more important to do?)

As usual, if our imperfectly worded section is, in practice, communicating the correct idea to the editors, then I'm in the "ain't broke, don't fix" camp. If, on the other hand, there's real confusion on this point, then please point us at the discussion, and see whether we can both better understand the confusion, and help resolve the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What made me think of it was this, however, those links may all be valid ELs and I personally have no great objection to them. But in regards to the section in question being "imperfectly worded", I would say that as written it is actually presenting a fundamentally flawed idea, namely that External Links should be numerically balanced. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a dispute to me, or at least close enough to one that a discussion there, in the specific context, might be enlightening. I'll watchlist the page for a few days (and I hope that other editors will do the same), if you'll start a discussion about the links that you think should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"...External Links should be numerically balanced" It doesn't say that; that's your interpretation. The key sentence actually reads:

"...the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view..."

M-W.com "overwhelm": 1 : upset, overthrow 2 a : to cover over completely : submerge b : to overcome by superior force or numbers c : to overpower in thought or feeling

My interpretation is that the section says that the degree of imbalance of equal points of view should not become extreme.

It's a model of rulecrafting compared to the unacceptable WP:ELNO section. Milo 04:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, would 3:1 be considered "overwhelming"? In any event, it's quite possible that you'll end up with a very different number of suitable external links for different points of view, and shouldn't be prevented from including them all if they are otherwise good. And again, links espousing more dominant views are all the more likely to be reliable sources which should be integrated as references rather than used as ELs, so you could well have no External links for a predominant viewpoint. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PSWG1920, no offense, but I see your name cropping up all the time trying to change policy and guideline pages to your own rather peculiar beliefs and interpretations. Considering how many times you've been reverted and how many times your desires have been shown to be not in line with longstanding consensus, perhaps you ought to spend more time following these policies and guidelines instead of trying to change them. DreamGuy (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:CREEP says that "Page instructions should be pruned regularly" (and no, I did not put that in there.) Secondly, it's interesting that you chose to comment on me personally and not on the issue I raised. If you're going to continue with that, then I'll point to instances in which I have pretty clearly improved such pages. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Get consensus first before making changes you know or anticipate to be controversial. You've been told this approximately a zillion times on various policy and guideline pages now, so continuing to edit when you know others oppose the changes is nothing but disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first case, I made the change 15 hours after I had started this discussion with no replies, so I figured it might not be controversial. [26] The second time I did not simply revert, but tried something else. [27] This was, for example, how a more accurate nutshell of WP:POINT was achieved. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found 168 hours a more appropriate period than 15 hours to derive consensus from silence on a policy page. Not everybody who would object visits Wikipedia every day. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

168 hours is a bit long. The normal period to wait for responses is 24 hours. Note that the point of WP:SILENCE is that you can never really prove that you have consensus, but consensus can be disproved in under a minute. If you disagree with an edit, please provide reasoning about the edit. You may have done so earlier, but at this moment in time I'm seeing a lot of ad- hominem. Remember, we blame the procedure, not the person. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see is a long-range effort to try to change policies in order make it easier to use Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please elucidate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be a constructive use of my time and effort. I'm afraid you'll just have to examine the history of contributions for yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Shall I take that as a retraction? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Amateur history sites are not "personal sites"

Re article 11 in Section 4, re blogs, personal sites etc.....this page was cited as the reason to remove a very good amateur history site from Maple Ridge, British Columbia, as if it were a "personal site". Personal sites are about the person, but when someone composese an amateur history site for their community, or in the case of bios for genealogies, there's no reason why it can't be included; in this particular case the removed link (which I have reinstated) is funded by the British Columbia Heritage Trust and features photos from the BC Archives and Vancouver Public Library; it carries no advertising. I have such a site myself - http://www.cayoosh.net - and know of oters, which fill in the blanks where "official" sources fall short...and quite often amateur sites have more accurate info than those on commercially-operated history sites e.g. http://www.britishcolumbia.com which nonehtless also has info not to be found anywhere (it's tolerated in BC wikispace exactly for that reason, though it has accuracy problems in some cases; but they are open to correctin/submission/improvement). So far, I am unaware of anyone removing references to my website on the basis of WP:ELNO, but I would aver that online "official" sources are very sketchy and few and far bhtween; it's not in the government's busienss or interest to pay for history sites, and academics tend to focus on their own agendas; community and amateur historians are entirely valid; so there should be some sort of qualification on article 11 about distinguishing between "personal sites" and "amateur history/science/geography" sites, which are many and often uniquely valuable.Skookum1 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that here a similar answer as below fits. What is meant that we should avoid links like 'oh, he also has a website with some nice pictures', but if the site is to the point, gives good information, is up to date &c. then there would be no reason why it can't be included. Give it a good description, add it with an informative edit summary, and, if needed, a post on the talkpage to explain the choice. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Amateur history is often the only way to get information on some communities. I'm sourcing information on several communities in North Dakota, and the county history books I am using from my local library often are just compiliation of letters/stories written by residents more than 50 years ago. If those would be considered a reliable published source, I don't see why a modern, on-line version wouldn't be treated the same.DCmacnut<> 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In general amateur history sites are personal sites, as are amateur cooking sites and amateur anything else under the sun sites. If you read "personal" meaning people blogging about their cats or whatever then you are misreading the intent of that line quite dramatically. Certainly some amateur history sites are valid, especially those well on their way to being considered reliable sources, but in general they should be avoided. Frankly, if the only place for some information is from an amateur site, then that information usually isn't notable enough to be included. We are not here to provide all information that exists, we are here to provide dependable and notable information. DreamGuy (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem. Yes, it may be an easy way if not the only way to get information - that doesn't make it something we should link to however. Ever owner of such a site is going to say theirs is great, even if it shows that Atlantis is in their back yard. And is this argument meant to say such sites should also be considered to meet the criteria at WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No links to forums???

1. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

Wait a minute!! forums and groups can be very very relevant to sharing knowledge! I suggest that this rule be removed, as it is it needs protection for music genre articles!! idm needs the intelligent dance music groups to be linked as the relevance is there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John hannan (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of Wikipedia not being a collection of links. For example, an article on an alternative therapy should not link to forums and discussion groups about that therapy even though they might be useful in understanding how it is applied or how effective it might be. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More likely it's the old WP:LIKEBRITANNICA kneejerk. Britannica doesn't have __fill in the blank__, so Wikipedia can't have __fill in the blank__, because Britannica is an encyclopedia, so __fill in the blank__ would obviously be unencyclopedic. Milo 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More likely it's that people who actually understand what Wikipedia is for -- reliable information -- know that forums etc. are not reliable sources for it. And kneejerk anti-whatever-Wikipedia-does certainly won't help anything. DreamGuy (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also no practical limit to how many different independent forums there might be related to a subject, which means an article could be overwhelmed by the links. The current rule is good: don't link forums unless they are the subject's official site. (Which is unlikely. If the subject is a person or organization and has a forum, it is probably going to be part of a larger site that we would link using its main page.) --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If a specific forum is really, truly a valuable addition, then editors can ignore all the rules anyway. The most persistent forum spammer I remember offhand was a guy that kept spamming his Yahoo! Groups forum to rosacea. He'd cooked up a strange diet-and-drugs plan for treating resistant rosacea, asserted that dermatologists were suppressing the Truth™ to make themselves wealthy, and was trying to use Wikipedia to recruit people (i.e., us) to test it for him. Here's a sample of the content, if you're looking for some entertainment.

The most important point, though, is that we're trying to send readers to information, ideally of the "too much detail to be incorporated in the article" kind of information. Due to their constantly changing nature, you never know what the reader will actually see in a chat board (or e-mail list, or Twitter feed, or blog). This makes it essentially impossible to know whether we're sending reader to valuable information (what they want), or to a bunch garbage that appeared since the valuable information was last verified. I will always support a general ban on these kinds of links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I do consider your opinions seriously. I was hoping there was actually a good reason for avoiding links to forums. I see that there isn't. The WP:IAR position is impractical to implement due to extremist enforcers emanating from this page. The guide has to change to become more reasonable.

Fear of dynamic forum content, merely because it accumulates, is outdated (if it ever made sense for WP:LIKEBRITANNICA).

Most forums are databases of significant detailed information on both common and obscure issues that WP can never cover. Forums are where users can find cutting-edge specific information as follow-up to the detailed coverage external sites.

For two essential examples of forum information, shade tree mechanic auto repair of microprocessor-controlled engines (all of them made now) would be much more difficult without auto repair forums. Also, I simply could not do OS repair without OS-specific forums.

Now why is it that I, an experienced user of the net, am not allowed to indirectly communicate to newbies the way I actually solve difficult problems, by linking at the article to forums I regularly use? It's completely logical to link to those that are not specifically objectionable. For the case of too many to accommodate, they can be linked on a rotating basis based on a table of alphabet section per month, or many other schemes.

"never know what the reader will actually see" That's an attempt at over control. Readers aren't dummies; they know how a forum works. If a dynamically stable forum becomes abusive, or useless due to the post archive going off line, editors are going to find out about it and remove the link for cause. Exceptional problems are not a regular reason to deprive readers of what they came to WP to find out. Milo 07:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Milo, have you actually read what the title of that section says? Hint: it does not say: "You should never link to these sites". Yes, there are exceptions, but they are certainly not a rule. By far the most of the forums are not really adding to an encyclopedia, however, some do. And the examples you give (and I can give you way more), are suitable, but there are more which are not adding to the page, or which fail the guideline for reasons laid out earlier in the guideline. The forum has to be pretty specific to do what it should do (the page on a specific type of car could link to the forum on the repair of that specific type of car, it should not link to a forum about how to repair all cars of a specific brand, or on how to replace tyres on all types of car). It is a narrowing down in the end, but it still does not forbid. Yet, that is what you keep implying in all discussions here. Sigh. I am the last to remove the official MySpace of Britney Spears, but when I see random myspace additions (the myspace of the lead vocal on her second tour, the myspace of her dog, &c., what, even the official MySpace of a far far relative of her who died in 1870; and those are by far the most), yes, then I revert on sight. Is the official Twitter of Britney Spears that is now on her page inappropriate, well, it is discussable, it is official, so that is good, but does it add to the page. Does it provide information which can not be incorporated in the article, or b) which is important to get a better understanding the subject 'Britney Spears'? I believe that when I see posts that she is heaving dessert with her father, that I seriously doubt if that really helps in understanding (though the specific post may attribute the sentence that she has regular contact with her father). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary (07:56): "it does not say 'no links to forums', it says, that they should be avoided" That is exactly the problem. The guide should not say forums should be avoided – given the many good forums, that's extreme. The guide should simply provide selection standards for good forums. (btw, Britney "heaving dessert", LOL. That will get the rumor mill churning.) Milo 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you are making sense. What word would you suggest? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no good forums per WP:EL's goals and standards. We are not a web directory. There is no encyclopedic reason to provide links to places where people chit chat. We are an encyclopedia, and people need to always keep that in mind. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We are dancing on the head of a pin here, because all Wikipedia guidelines are meant to be interpreted with common sense and the occasional exception. There is no ban on any link as long as it abides by WP:EL. Social networking sites, blogs, forums and message boards are usually unsuitable as external links, but could make a case on the talk page if they wished. What is unacceptable is allowing dreary self-published sources and spam to be used in a way that violates WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What going on with the External links guide doesn't take rocket science to understand, just a simple understanding of feedback not conceptually dissimilar to audio volume and tone controls.

The guide is launching extremists from this page. The best way to limit extremism is to change the guide language, so that they have less guide basis to harass local editors with extreme interpretations. The proper type and degree of guide change is that which optimizes harmony of function and editorial cooperation at the article pages. Milo 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If we get rid of extremists here you wouldn't be posting. Wikipedia tends to ignore extremists thanks to rules on WP:CONSENSUS and pre-existing policies and guidelines. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait? Are you here describing editors who follow a consensus based guideline based on consensus based policies as 'extremists'. Please a) assume good faith, and b) don't call names. Discuss the merit of the arguments, not the editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have already forgotten, I described to you what happened in general terms in WT:External links#Request for comment, Milo (11:01). Four editors from this page each engaged in behavior to varying degrees extreme. That's a documentable set of facts. Do I really need to instruct you on the authorizing details of WP:AGF and WP:NPA regarding experience and verifiable facts? Milo 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to. But I do believe that the remark has a chilling effect, as has the remark 'I have been here longer than you ...'. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are much more likely to be acceptable links than forums or message boards because a "site" is far more likely to have been created by an aknowledged expert on a topic than are self-published "posts" on a forum. Self-published forum posts are often tedious or slanderous, and most posts on most forums certainly don't rise above the level of "trivial". This is not the ILIKEIT website. This is an encyclopedia. In general anyone can post most any drivel on a forum, which means the content of a forum will have lots of unhelpful crap, and won't be encyclopedic in any case. We don't link to stuff that is fun, useful or even helpful. We link to meritable content that adds to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic. Forums and social networking pages almost never have encyclopedic as their reason for being, or how they do things. 2005 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Techies view forums more positively and as more encyclopedic than do you. Milo 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're speaking for all techies? That claim goes against my knowledge of what techies believe is reliable. They want documents from a company or some other single source, not a bunch of wannabes yammering. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Google. While a very few forums or message boards might have a place in article space the vast majority would add nothing to an article beyond a link of (dubious) convenience. If readers want to locate forums on topic X then they may, quite easily, type "topic X forums" into their favorite search engine and feast upon the cornucopia of links that result. L0b0t (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the value of internet chat boards in general, or even to a subset of readers; it's about whether the resource provides encyclopedic information on the subject. There's a long-standing consensus among editors to generally reject such links as inappropriate for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to get this discussion further. I mentioned this above in a question: the wording 'Links normally to be avoided' is apparently found to be too agressive by some, and it is apparently misused by others to eradicate external links too strongly. There I asked for a suggestion, here I am going to suggest something. Alternative wording: 'Sites which often are not suitable as an external link', 'External links which generally do not pass the merits of this guideline', 'External links of which a large majority would not be suitable for inclusion', 'External links which should be closely examined before they are added' (or something along these lines)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That wording isn't aggressive enough. "To be avoided" generally means anyone who aggressively wants to ignore the longstanding consensus rules and standards will do so regardless of merit. If it ever gets reworded it should be stronger to avoid this kind of weaseling. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone just sent me copies of some posts on a Yahoo group which were discussing me for some reason (I don't belong to the group). The stuff was pretty libellous. It made me realise that probably we should not give any excuses for linking to such groups. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"linking to such groups" Do you mean all forums everywhere including car repair forums, all Yahoo groups including car repair groups, or just Yahoo groups with libels? I and others have been defamed on this very page, so why pick on Yahoo group(s) for what is a widespread internet problem? Milo 09:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not "been defamed on this very page." Get a grip. If you want to be taken seriously the way to do so is to say comments that can be taken seriously instead of bizarre things like that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All forums. Yahoo groups have the added problem of allowing users to store files in them, which at times are copyvio. As fir defamation on this or any other Wikipedia page, we can block users and delete the defamation, so there is no comparison with forums which are out of our control. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So we're essentially banning references to any (digital) datasource invented after roughly 1970, though we'll grudgingly allow HTTP? That's a bit silly, I'd say.

• USENET eats their own dog food, so a lot of USENET information is found... on usenet.
• Blogs like Groklaw are fairly essential to the modern internet community.
• The RFC editor is a canonical source of information about internet protocols
• I'm sure we can find some twitter information out of iran that is encyclopedic and historic in nature.
• There's a very famous flamewar between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tannenbaum on record that was instrumental in the direction chosen by Linux and perhaps minix; or at least illustrates the philosophical differences very clearly. Was that on usenet? ;-)
• I'd love to know what was in those missing white house e-mails ;-)
• I'm less familiar with facebook and myspace due to being an old fogey, but I'm sure people can find some examples.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the types of links being discouraged are not based on a Luddite aversion to new formats. It's just that certain formats rarely produce good links, so it is easier to exclude them generally then provide for exceptions. For example, if a blog is produced by a reputable authority (such as a notable scholar of the subject or a major news organization), then the current guidelines allow it to be included in external links. On the other hand, the blog postings of Joe Blow who happens to have an opinion about the subject are not allowed for external links. Same format, different result. Now, it so happens that the vast majority of forum posts, blogs, etc., are from the Joe Blows of the world, which is why the guideline discourages them first and then allows for special exceptions when appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall the problem seems to be stereotyping.
Some editors have had bad personal experiences with discussion venue Z, and want to retaliate by banning all discussions on venue Z, or just to make sure, all discussions everywhere on the net. But wait – I had a good experience at my well-moderated car repair venue Y. Why should it be banned along with Z (that may deserve banning)?
Other editors have noticed that most venues X are poorly constructed, so some years ago they wrote avoid all X. However, since then venues X may have improved by percentage to the point where "avoid" is unreasonable. When things rapidly change like the net does, case-by-case analysis makes more sense, just as is done with each article.
Another problem is that the venues to "avoid" are avoided to such an extreme degree that the pretty good X venues are effectively required to meet impossible standards. ('But we're a Google Publisher!' 'So what, the WP:ELNO guide says you should be avoided.')
Yet another problem is packing together widely varying types of venues under a single "avoid" label.
Some of these problems might improve if the various venues were unpacked, and standards for each were developed as to what ranges of construction and performance are acceptable.
One proffered reason for not unpacking the "avoid" venues is that the WP:ELNO numbering would change. Ok, why renumber them? Just create a small standards section for each venue and the numbering problem goes away. Milo 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stereotyping? Mwaagh, no, I, for example, have no experience with discussion forums, not even bad ones or personal ones. What I do look for is a) if discussion venue 'Z' is adding something to a page, b) if it has the same subject as the page it is added to, c) if it is directly linked to the page, d) if it is accessible everywhere, d) if it is stable, e) if it is by an authority, &c. And, I am sorry to say, forums generally fail that. Forums are very often too wide, forums don't add, forums don't fit in the goal of this encyclopedia.

I agree, it is a case-by-case analysis, but from such case-by-case analyses there are many, many which simply fall off, they are not appropriate. There is nothing wrong with keeping an eye, and being a bit strict with it. I know, there are many which are appropriate, but we have to avoid to add the inappropriate ones, or that they will be added. 'Avoid those which are not written by an official authority', 'avoid those which are not directly linked to the subject', 'avoid those that are not adding anything useful to the page', you see, you can still add all those which are directly linked to the page, which add something useful to the page, and which are written by an authority. And that, indeed, are many. If you take away the 'avoid', then it is 'you can add them, even if they are not written by an authority, if they do not link directly to the subject of the page, and even if they can only be accessed in Australia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid" with qualifications is more reasonable than just "avoid". But why does every qualification have to be negatively stated? How about 'If link space is limited, choose external links to the better qualified sites over less qualified sites.' ('Chose' this, 'choose' that.)

"forums don't fit in the goal of this encyclopedia." I can't understand that concept. What goal won't fit around external links? Why shouldn't WP help me find what I need to know?

"'avoid those which are not directly linked to the subject'" This seems ok.

"adding something to a page" That is, not simply redundant; this makes sense.

"if it is accessible everywhere" Makes sense.

"if it is stable" Some editors seem to think that "stable" means that the forum is closed to new posts. I would accept 'dynamically stable', meaning motion analogous to a bicycle, in that the site is acting in an expected manner for forums.

"avoid to add the inappropriate ones" This requires a list of undesirable forum behaviors, like flame wars, and how much is too much. (For example: 'Does moderator halt flaming or remove flame posts?')

"'avoid those that are not adding anything useful to the page'" This somewhat makes sense, but there is lack of consensus as to what is "useful", so some other phrase or qualifier is needed.

"'Avoid those which are not written by an official authority'" Doesn't work at all. In the case of car repair, "official authority" (the manufacturer) wants owners to spend the highest price possible at official dealer repair shops. Almost no one who is consulting WP for car repair help is likely to be interested in expensive official repair shops. Note also that in some countries, state-owned web sites might be linked when private sites could be better.

Sticking with the car repair example, I've been in great need for repair information about a certain model of older vehicle. The library books didn't help. The Wikipedia article will be even less detailed than the library books, but a model-specific forum could easily be linked in the external links.

The forum I eventually found is by no specific "authority", just a number of repair-experienced owners of that model. One procedure I needed just happened to have a complete set of photographs. I also got written answers (and a custom photo!) to disassembly problems difficult to solve without garage tools. Milo 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sticking with the car repair example; Wikipedia is not Google, If a reader wants to locate a forum about auto repair then all they need to do is type auto repair forums into the search engine of their choice. In my view we need proscriptive language lest we get inundated with spam. It is much easier to have a policy or guideline to point to that says "don't link to these unless they meet this criteria" than it is to have the same discussion, ad nauseam, with every single person who comes along wanting to add their favorite forums. L0b0t (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"type "auto repair forums" into the search engine" Ok, I did that in Google. 8,000+ hits, apparently not all real; many scraper sites and such. #5 was labeled "This site may harm your computer." Ok, avoid those.

I added the model name of my car to the search. 157 hits, apparently not all real, some with no cache and scraper-looking names. The second site was labeled "This site may harm your computer." Ok, avoid that one too. Clicked on the first one. A dialog box pops up blocking my access to the browser controls. 'Warning your computer may be infected, click ok to begin a search for malware' Uh oh, no no no, click the [x] close button in the upper right corner and everything will be ok. WRONG MOVE – IT'S SEARCHING MY DRIVE ANYWAY. But now I have access to the browser controls and I quick close the window. Now I wonder if I'm going to have spend a day disinfecting my computer.

Ok, that didn't work out, so why don't you want Wikipedia to help me by preselecting the good sites? Milo 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that's a job for Wikidirectory, not an encyclopedia. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But web directories don't select sites, they unselectively list everything. Milo 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What Damian said. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. If you would like the Wikimedia Foundation to create a wiki-based web directory, feel free to suggest it here. Or you could go here. --RL0919 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean that you want to eliminate all external links? Milo 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot do everything. It can't advise where to buy stuff, or what is a good product or a good price, and it can't list all potentially useful web sites. Of course Wikipedia could attempt to do those things, but it should focus on being an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not suggesting doing everything. I found one useful web site with interactive information. Why won't you let me help other owners with the same problem? Milo 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The section heading in the guideline is Links normally to be avoided. A specific exception should be discussed on the talk page of whichever article you are referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. See Milo (20:25) above. Milo 08:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the absence of auto repair forums, maybe it's just me but the internet, particularly an encyclopedia on the internet, would not spring to mind as a place to learn how to fix a car. The excellent Chilton's/Haynes or Clymer repair manuals, a neighborhood mechanic, or a mechanically inclined friend, even radio's Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers would be better sources to visit. L0b0t (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained that in Milo (23:04) above. I tried all those things, except I wouldn't bother a working mechanic, and only a few people with car problems actually get through on national radio. Milo 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Milo, why is 'avoid' negative? Is a sentence: 'add only those which are not riddled with advertisement, and those which are not installing malware, and those which are not requiring payment' more positive? It is a, by definition, negative list, a list of pages where the large majority fails. But those which are fine, are not forbidden. If you find that car forum which is properly moderated, on topic, etc. etc., then there is nothing that stops you from using that. All others, should be avoided, or at least be discussed on the talkpage.

You suggest to qualify what adds to a page, IMHO, written in the very often ignored introduction of this guideline: "Such pages could 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." --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"add only those" That would still be negative.

I was thinking of some balance of positive and negative statements.

Yes, good point, the introduction you mention is positive.

"is nothing that stops you from using that" As you can see above, they won't let me, but the reasons don't make any sense. For example, a normal sized section of external links simply is not a web directory. Web directories are huge. Milo 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For an example of avoid-because-of-avoid guiding described in Milo (20:25), see circular reasoning in Johnuniq (08:08) above. Milo 08:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Milo, you don't have, and aren't going to obtain, consensus for this change. Everyone else seems to understand that "avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely blacklist without exception". Everyone else seems to believe that this is good general advice. Editors are still allowed to use their best judgment.

If you just want to gripe about it, let me suggest the Village Pump, where you're likely to find an audience with more time and interest in complaints about the already non-banned status of a website that you want to see non-banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"aren't going to obtain, consensus for this change" You're right about that. I want to know the reasons why, sans the circular reasons. One reason seems to be a definitional confusion between a short and selective external links list and a huge unselective "web directory".

" want to gripe" I want to fix it.

"Editors are [[WP:IAR|still allowed to use their best judgment]]." Jim Crow era African-Americans were constitionally "allowed" to vote in the South, but in practice they couldn't.

"Everyone else seems to understand that "avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely blacklist without exception". I have collected evidence to the contrary. Even if most editors do understand that, it only takes a handful of extremists to squeeze "avoid" toward a blacklist. (Btw, you're well-educated – why are you using the absolute generalization "Everyone"?)

Tentatively, the major problem appears to be that the "avoid" statements have no qualifications. Without them, "avoid" has become absolute in practice.

I agree that's unexpected, but The Guardian reported yesterday that the number of active Wikipedians is now just under 500,000. With such large numbers, marginal effects of guide language are becoming significant, so guide language must become more nuanced in response. Milo 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get what you want, so it's probably time to think about whether further complaints here are a waste of your time and energy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sites that require subscription

It's not correct that we shouldn't link to sites that require payment. That would preclude us from linking to, say, an interesting article in the New York Times archive. As the policies have to be descriptive as well as prescriptive, this should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, pay newspaper archives would more typically be references, not external links, where pay sites have never been prohibited, but the point is essentially the same--Free sites are preferred over pay sites when available, much as online references are preferred over dead tree references, but all are valid repositories of information. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, by far the most of the newspaper items are suitable references. And if they require payment, they are inaccessible to most editors who don't have a subscription (that is also true for using them as a reference, but then an editor who does have a subscription can check if the content of the article linked to is attributing the statement it is a reference for, as an external link they are supposed to add info which could not be referenced or included). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think that pay/subscription sites are generally good for ==External links==, for exactly the same reasons that I oppose websites that are only functional for people with certain kinds of computers, or that are in certain parts of the world. "We recommend that you read something that we know you can't read" does not help our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the three previous comments. Courtesy link in a citation to a pay site that reproduces print information: fine. Link to pay site as the primary source in a citation: OK, but a free source would be preferred. Link to a pay site in an external links list: not helpful. Also, if we freely allowed these, there would be an obvious incentive for pay sites to seed their links into articles, and it would be difficult for uninvolved editors to know if they were relevant or not, precisely because of the requirement to pay. --RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is correct that we do not link to pay sites in external links sections. We can certainly use some of them as sources, though. External links need to be useful to the majority of the people reading the article, and subscription sites are not. I don't know what it is with people coming out of nowhere trying to argue against longstanding standards here with matter of fact statements as if they are common sense when they are not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a project is built on the principle of making no distinction between commercial and non-commercial. We make information available from anyone reliable. If people don't want to pay for it, that's fine, but for those who do, a link might be useful. Also, bear in mind the sums involved are often tiny: just enough to cover payment for one article in many cases. I think any policy or guidelines that prohibits us from linking to an old New York Times story is ipso facto dead in the water, in the sense that people will clearly ignore it, which means it isn't really operative.

Another consideration is that people can use the citation to find the material without charge from a library. Disallowing that simply because the main source charges for access would be pointless censorship. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, are we all clear here that we're exclusively discussing websites that are not being linked as reliable sources to support article content? This guideline has nothing against pay/register/whatever websites for WP:Citing sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm saying we should be allowed to include in EL links to academic journals, newspapers, and the like that contain information relevant to the article, but not directly used as a source, and that whether they charge for papers and articles should make no difference.

What matters is only whether the information would be interesting to our readers: if people don't want to pay a couple of dollars to retrieve an article from a newspaper archive, or $20 for an academic paper, that's up to them, but that's no reason not to let them know the material exists and how to find it. We add books to "further reading" without insisting they be free. Wikipedia has never made a commercial/non-commercial distinction -- e.g. look at our policy of allowing only free images that do not prohibit commercial use. This section in EL is really quite antithetical to WP's mission and philosophy.

In addition, as I said above, once you have the information, there are often other ways of obtaining the material without paying e.g. by checking through an academic database in a university or public library. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pay sites should not be listed. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and we should offer only free alternatives. Kingturtle (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But why? That seems to place ideology ahead of common sense. If The New York Times has published a very interesting story that is relevant to an article topic, but has not been used as a source, why would you want to prohibit me from telling readers about it, simply because the Times charges two dollars for a copy of the story from its archive? As a reader, I can (a) pay the two dollars, (b) take the citation and go to my local library which might have it for free, or (c) ignore the link. Why would you want to remove that choice? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Two things...the first I've mentioned already. Wikipedia is free, therefore external links should be free. Yes, this is ideology. But that's the Wikipedia ideology. Also, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia concerns itself with its own content. External links really should be kept to a minimum. Wikipedia should not be a place for people to go to find external links. It is a place to go to get information and perhaps participate in creating content. Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, KT, with respect you're just repeating the same point without giving evidence for it. The fact that we insist that images be made available for commercial use before we can use them under a free licence is evidence that Wikipedia's ideology is not anti-commercial. We simply do not, as a project, distinguish between commercial and non-commercial. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anti-commercial, I said free. Wikipedia uses free content. We don't pay for images or musical excerpts. There are people on payroll, but they are paid for development and PR, not for content. Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with this issue. We're not asking Wikipedia to pay for anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're asking readers to pay for something, which is their choice, of course, but this is a free encyclopedia that should provide access to free external links. We are a free site. By providing pay sites in external links we're sending a message that the Wikipedia experience is better for those who can pay money. Kingturtle (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of concrete examples where such links would be helpful. Is there a real example in dispute here? I expect it would be a situation where the linked material 1) isn't the subject's own work or official site, 2) isn't used as a source, and 3) isn't a courtesy link to a print source listed under "Further reading"; but nonetheless provides either a) a unique resource or b) information from a reputable authority on the subject that would not be contained in the article itself if it were of Featured Article quality. So what's the example, beyond the generic concept of a newspaper or journal article about an unspecified subject? --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RL0919. I think that's a great direction to take this discussion.

I'll add that, at the moment, the responses indicate strong opposition to SV's proposal, which suggests that there will not be any consensus for this change, even if a sympathetic example is put forward. Editors can WP:IAR for an individual external link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

more on Fansites...

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

1) If a site is written by a recognized authority, then it is not a fansite.

2) Where can I read about this consensus that fansites are okay?

Kingturtle (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) is IMHO almost by definition true. I don't know about (2), I can see reasons for inclusion, and probably just as many to not (maybe even more of the latter). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (I added a newline between the 2 points for readability, hope you don't mind --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not aware of anyone saying that there is a consensus that fansites (in general) are OK. The exception language that was (briefly) cut from point 11 presumably applies to the full range of sites discussed in that point: "blogs, personal web pages and fansites". A recognized authority most certainly can have a blog or personal website that is relevant to an article's subject. --RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I assume that you've got a discussion going at a specific article about this; if you want to share the link and the article here, then perhaps several editors will look at it and provide outside opinions for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to redefine the english language. Fansites are often written by experts. They are just a website like any other. Fansites are sometimes perfectly fine link. Find A Grave is a fansite with thousands of external links. 2005 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the problem is that the fansites are here (I included the text at the top of the section) named together with the blogs and the personal webpages. The former two can be written by a recognised authority, whereas that for fansites is hard to imagine. A rewrite could give:

Links to blogs, personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies) and fansites.

But that might be even more confusing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If the category ("fansites written by a recognized authority") is essentially empty, I'm not sure that it hurts anything for the language of the exception to theoretically include it. Besides, 'fansite' is not well defined, and I would hate to see pointless arguing over whether a site created by a recognized authority is a 'personal web page' vs. a 'fansite'. --RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is zero logic to thinking fansites can't be written by authortes. It doesn't make any sense at all. Fansites are written by a fan or fans of something. They can be recognized authority or not. 2005 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular external link in mind. I am just concerned that the language here gives too much wiggle room for fan site advocates. Usually, those advocating fansites here have a vested interest in the site, and the external link becomes spam-like in nature. We need to work on the language very carefully and specifically so there is no mistaking what is acceptable and what is not. Kingturtle (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked is this: in my experience, tweaking the ELNO rules to stave off strictly hypothetical confusion doesn't work. In fact, it frequently introduces confusion, because previously confident editors notice the change and then wonder whether they're doing things wrong. Furthermore, a statement that seems, in the abstract, to be potentially confusing is usually not so confusing when you have a specific website in mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No objection to refining the language (note that I did not restore the word 'most' in front of 'fansites' when I restored the exception clause). But the current exception is pretty rigorous. I doubt many fansite creators are notable enough to have their own articles. Are editors actually arguing that the exception applies, or are they just ignoring/defying the guideline? I would think the latter is more common, but maybe I just haven't seen the right discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that! I think that change definitely helps. I just don't want any confusion. Kingturtle (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing most is frankly just weird, since most conveys the point. Recognized authority sites are fine. We are trying to be clear here, not obtuse. 2005 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the previous wording, because it can be read as "avoid all blogs, all personal websites, but only most fansites." The exception applies to all of them equally, as does WP:IAR, so the "most" language seems unnecessary to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the removal of most. Dlabtot (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a specific discussion of the inclusion of a fansite: [28]. Dlabtot (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The clearest wording would be to add "most" in front of the list of blogs/etc, the "only exception are those sites created by or that are a recognized authority." Something like that. This addresses a previous concern that the recognized authority part applies to all of them. "ELNO" is a problem in itself, but except for a few people on both fringes of this issue, most people agree that external links to recognized authorities are sometimes valid links. We shoud make the sentence clearly reflect that. 2005 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If "most" needs to be included in this line, then it needs to be included in at least half of the ELNOs: 'Editors should generally avoid "most" social networking sites (10), "most" blogs (11), "most" open wikis (12)...'. I think that the "most" idea is sufficiently communicated by not issuing a sweeping ban on such sites. Editors know what the word "except" means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to fix the real issue... this stuff is not "no". ELNO gives the wrong idea. Wikis, fansites, personal expert sites, and blogs that are by recognized authorities (on the topic) are fine to link to. 2005 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is what it already says. Of course, the number of 'fansites' written by a 'recognized authority' is very close to zero. Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true. What we define fansites as means most independant expert sites are "fansites". In addition, many fansites clearly meet the "recognized authority" bar of thousands of editors... Find A Grave and Wookieepedia to name two. 2005 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

←

It appears 2005's point is that the name (NO) doesn't match the content (SELDOM). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The shortcut isn't the guideline, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for that complaint, but if someone wants to create [[WP:ELSELDOM]] or [[WP:ELRARELY]], then that's okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fansites can be reliable. Whedonesque.com and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 are two that come to mind. While most fansites aren't of any lasting value, there are plenty that are useful for non-BLP purposes. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What determines the notability of each of those sites? Kingturtle (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability of the sites themselves is irrelevant and non-germane to this discussion. All that matters is the site's reputation for fact checking and reliability. L0b0t (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And the only valid way to determine what a site's reputation for fact-checking is by looking to reliable sources. Do reliable sources describe the site as having such a reputation? Do they use the site as a reference? Dlabtot (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then how did we find the first reliable source, if there are no reliable sources against which to check its reputation for fact-checking? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to sidetrack the discussion with irrelevant sophistry. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

←

As I understand WP:RS, "source with a good reputation for fact-checking" and "reliable source" are synonyms. Your "Do reliable sources describe the site as having such a reputation?" could be rephrased as "Do reliable sources describe the site as reliable?". This makes "reliability" look like a directed acyclic graph, where sources are nodes and a descriptions of another source as reliable are edges. This raises the question: which nodes are the roots of this DAG? If this is "irrelevant sophistry", would this be better discussed on WT:RS? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • To answer Kingturtle's question, both of those sites are described as implicitly reliable by other RS. In the Lurker's Guide case, several books on Babylon 5 reference it. In Whedonesque's case, industry and mainstream press cite its original reporting of material as a source. No one ever came out and said "I declare this website an RS per Wikipedia standards" because any non-Wikipedian isn't going to even think that way. Instead, when reliable sources ciute their reliance on a source, absent any criticism of that source's reliability (because there are certainly some sites that get things wrong as often as right) it develops that reputation for fact checking and accuracy, even if it's a fan-run site. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

'Web presence'

Some of the links of the 'forum type' are a continuous source of debate, and one of them (twitter) is at the moment a source of debate in a deletion discussion for the {{twitter}}.

We generally say here, for these links (blogspot, myspace, twitter, facebook), that they make poor external links, they often do not add to the page, they are often not stable, and there are quite often cases where the 'official' link is not officially the one of the subject of the page, or the 'official blahblah forum', is not actually maintained by blahblah, but by someone who names his forum thé official forum.

However, for celebrities and similar, these links make part of their 'web presence', and that is certainly something that is of encyclopedic value.

I would therefor suggest to set up a {{Web presence}}, which boxes up the common and more important web-presence links into a box on the right of the page (where there is also the 'Wiktionary has more info on this subject'). As parameters the box can have 'twitter' (adding 'twitter=Jimbo Wales' to the template results in a twitter link for Jimbo), and so on for myspace, youtube-channels, facebook, name them all. Maybe even common things like imdb could have their place in such a box (yes, imdb is a generally accepted link as external link, though I often think that they do not tell anything that is not also already mentioned on the page itself, and hence it does not add to the page).

I know that it is touchy on the 'we are not a directory' type of thinking, but then, we also have links to commons, wiktionary and 'species, and though they are on sister projects, they are external links (they are still wikis, and some pages don't tell anything really). But these do add to the understanding of the person, though they are there not strict external links anymore.

It has some advantages: they move out of the external links section, so the links can more distinctively be about pages which follow the introduction of the guideline (and not, 'it is the official myspace, so it belongs here'), it might give less warring about the questionable cases (we are not a web directory, so we don't need them all, but which one is now more important than the other), it helps in forming metadata on the person (the template can be bot-scanned or read from the db to get the metadata, like in the persondata template), and even would give possibilities to check and control them by monitoring changes by bot. Moreover, the templates that we now have for all these links, can be deleted (as they should be obsolete), and we can use simple external links for those (selecting those which are useful and appropriate to move into the web-presence box) very few cases where another myspace or similar is yet another addition (which really should not happen too often). Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it was clearly documented as to what should be put in the template (e.g., only the subject's own authorized sites/profiles, not pages that some fan put up), I think this is a good idea that could provide a number of advantages. --RL0919 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are the ones I mean, indeed. If Jimbo Wales has as Twitter avatar 'Jimbo Wales", then thát one should be linked in the template. It should not contain JWales, the Twitter set up by some Jimbo Wales Fan. if Jimbo does not have a Twitter, the parameter should be empty (and what contents is in the template can be bot-checked by comparing it to verified data). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding it right this could be a good idea because we can then make a definite no on all social networking links that aren't official ones of the entity. I suppose my only thought is we should have a limit of some kind, like 10. if someone has more than ten offical sites, then I think we should not care. But wouldn't itbe hard to make such a template, as someone might have an official site as an actress and another official site as an artist or singer? I'm not very familiar with templates, but it seems to me it would be hard to have consistent/uniform fields. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal (about which I'm currently neutral) seems directed towards WP:BLPs, and it may need to be re-considered to deal with corporations. For example, look at this old version of a cosmetics company article. Every single link there is (1) a regular website and (2) an official link. (And, yes, they're all WP:NOTLINK spam, so the article now links only to the main corporate website, from whence you can reach all of these others.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding limits. One could think to fill only 7 or 8 really important ones there, and either fill the rest of the parameters with a <!-- don't add more, there are enough --> (and come up with some nifty edit filter to control it). Or maybe it would be possible to make the template 'count' the number of filled fields (or write an edit filter for that), and if it is more than 10, it autocategorises them.

From that point there is a practically total no on any other of these links, though there may be some exceptions here and there (an authority that is writing a blogspot totally devoted to the subject.

I did not mean to point the proposal to WP:BLP' only, the same technique can be applied for WP:DEO's (Descriptions of Existing Organisations :-D ) as well, some of them also have an official web-presence. Here e.g. the above discussed forum for a car might get a place, if the forum is 'officially supported' by the company (not when the forum is just declared official, but is 'totally devoted' to the subject of the page; then it might be an external link, which needs to pass merits for inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll consense DB's idea, because it seems to take some pressure off of the External links section. Right now the occasional excellent fansite or high value forum has to compete with official site links, in an External links section that some isolationist editors claim to be a "link farm" when it contains as little as two links. Milo 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a comment made above about consistency and limiting the number of fields, I think this something handled easily enough. The template can be formatted to provide the consistency, and the number of fields can be controlled. The key is to come up with a consensus on what are reasonable fields to include and how many. For example, here is a possible list of fields:

• Website1
• Web-description1
• Website2
• Web-description2
• Blog1
• Blog-description1
• Blog2
• Blog-description2
• Facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• YouTube

The "description" fields are to allow for some description of different websites or blogs the subject might have. For example, a notable academic might have a university website and then a personal website, which could be described accordingly. The Facebook, etc., fields can be described automatically, similar to the existing templates for these links. The example above would have eight links total, assuming a subject has something to fill in for every field. There could be situations I'm not thinking of (more sites, some other social network, etc.), but the template would have a specific number of fields, so it can be kept to some reasonable number, whatever folks think that is. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not include the official website(s) of the subject, those are still normal external links, I would just limit it to the official 'web-presence links'. So remove Website1 and Website2 (get normal links), not call them 'blog1', but 'blogspot', name them (they can be expanded if there are notable blogs out there). As parameters I also would suggest not to use 'http://twitter.com/name', but 'name', and let the template do the conversion.

Restriction on number has to be done in a different way, we have to play with the parserfunctions for that (if a subject has 25 different blogs on different bloghosts, then that would be excessive, but I don't see that happen too soon). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an official stuff links box, it would be confusing to not have all the official links in it. Milo 08:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales
official website
Web Presence
Blogspot
MySpace
Twitter

That does indeed also make sense, but the 'problem' is, that the 'own website' is of a different nature than the blogs &c., it provides another type of information. But that is not an impossible problem, what about this box -> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the separate line for the main official site... if there is not one that is more "official" than the others, would the box be able to default to still looking okay? 2005 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Web presence | Name = example | homepage = http://www.example.org | blogspot = example | twitter = example | myspace = example }} I have created the template {{Web presence}} (plus a handful of redirects). With 'the official one', I mean here that that generally is something like http://www.subject.com, if the myspace is thé official page, then that should be used there, and the 'myspace=' field stays empty. 'Official homepage' (now encoded as the field 'homepage') is hence what the subject would consider their main web presence. It may contain links to all the other web presences. We could consider to make an extra homepage field for the odd case where the subject is considered to have to main homepages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I will put some testcases on the template, reply to 2005: yes, omitting one of the fields does (well, should at least) take out the lines that are not needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we take the discussion of the details to the talk page for the template itself? I don't want to fragment the conversation, but it seems more appropriate to discuss the finer points of the template (e.g., should the official website be separated from the others, how many fields, how to label, etc.) on its own talk page rather than the policy talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do you propose placing this template? At the top of the article? (If so, how does it integrate with the various {{Infobox person}} templates?) Under ==External links==? (If so, it's going to look silly when that's the only thing in the EL section.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Certainly not on top. 'Somewhere at the bottom'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in the External links section. WhatamIdoing has something of a point, but the solution would be to float the box left if no other EL's. Is a float parameter possible within the box, say labeled, 'Float: Are there unofficial external links listed (y,n)? Milo 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We could take the same approach as we do with those big graphical WP:SISTER links in the same situation, which is to put them at the top of the last section (whatever the last section is), instead of creating an ==EL== section for them.

At this point, I don't think (any of) this needs to be covered in WP:EL (other than perhaps a ==See also== to the template). A suggested location on the template's doc page should be good enough. In a few months, when there's some established practice, then we could consider documenting it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not sister links. they are all external links. This box should not be on any page if there is no "external links" section. And discussion of it should happen here, otherwise we could just end up with another non-compliant template rather than one that was discussed in detail in a place anybody could find it if concerned about external links. I suggest left-orienting it, always directly under the extrenal links header, with other external links butting up to the right side of the box. This way it doesn't interfere with a Sister box, and makes clear these are external links, and includes all offcial ones, and also doesn't create an absurdly long bit of white space by formatting on top of other external links. 2005 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By that time I would also suggest to do a major sweep of the chosen links, and stuff them into this template. Then all those external link templates can click their heels and go bye bye, they should not be necessary anymore (as from then, the number of those links that still need to be added should be minimal, and certainly don't need an own template). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, one more time for the people who refuse to get it: We are WP:NOT a web directory. Providing links to a laundry list of sites is NOT at all what an encyclopedia is for and serves no encyclopedic purpose. We link to the main site. If the person or organization in question doesn't feel that listing Twitter/MySpace/Facebook/Forums/Blogs etc. prominently on their own home page is important to them, then why would it be important to an ENCYCLOPEDIA? And if they do link prominently to them, then the main site link already accomplished the goal anyway. We are not Google or Yahoo or anything of the sort. If someone wants to find a link to somebody's full "web presence" it takes all of a couple of seconds for them to pop it into their browser's search bar and go find it. Some people here just need a major reality check. The last thing we need is another obnoxious infobox on tons of pages for no purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

we are NOT a web directory -- what's wrong with the people who don't get that? When editors disagree with you, it doesn't mean there is "something wrong" with them. Editors who disagree with you don't "need a major reality check". Please refrain from further personal comments about other editors. Simply discuss the matter at hand and skip the insults. Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If a person/company/whatever has a web presence, we should link once to the best page that presents that. That, nearly all the time, is their website. If that person/company/whatever also has twitter and myspace and blog and other feeds, great - but it is not our place to fully outline every possible venue about that entity. If they haven't taking the steps to clearly advertise their additional web presence, it's not our place to make up for that.
If the entity doesn't have a website but has one or more of the other types of feeds, we should include one of those, starting with something blog-like (myspace) before having to go to something like twitter. But there is still no need to repeat all such feeds; if that entity hasn't put their tweeter feed in their myspace page, it's not our responsibility to fill that for them.
More importantly, I think we need to be careful of selectively weighing certainly social online services. Myspace and Twitter are huge, and 99% of the time, that's where someone's presence will be if they don't have a web page, but we're still artificially supporting these services if we include these links in addition to other links to official websites. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy and Masem are correct. ONE link to ONE external site is sufficient. Any more than that is excessive, unnecessary, and inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Third, forth, and fith DreamGuy and Masem. Wikipedia is NOT the celebrity link directory nor their social network nor their promoter nor the place to display their "web presence". One official link, and leave the social networking stuff to Google and their official site. How, exactly, does any Twitter, MySpace, etc celebrity website meet EL guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be all fine and dandy except that runs counter to both general practice and the lack of consensus on tfd's for the various templates. This template would minimize the clutter that would be caused by the much spammier loking templates (which link to both the person's page and to our Twitter article for example). Personally I see zero value in any Myspace/facebook/Twitter link and would like to see articles unable to be saved if the are included, but this is clearly not the consensus view. So, how do we get these crappy links under control? If we can't ban them, let's put them in a pithy little box. We could limit the box to five or three spots even. If a person has ten web presence links, which of those ten fit in the three web presence boxes could be discussed on the article talk page. We are not a web directory, but we support the official presence of article subjects. Whether a person has two sites or one has nothing to do with "web directory". Demanding that a person links to his/her official sites in a particular way is over-the-top silly. We are an encyclopedia. Linking to a person's various websites gives an encyclopedic overview of the person. If an actress has a acting website and AIDS research website it is to be aggressively un-encyclopedic to not link to both, regardless of how the actress links her own stuff. The bottom line is we need a good way to encyclopedically handle the way the web has changed so that we present the best encyclopedic coverage of a person we can. A box with a limited number of spots is a firm, clear, no exceptions way of doing things that is vastly superior to a list of templates for every social networking site under the sun that gets a template created for it. 2005 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am with 2005 here. A persons web presence is encyclopaedic. The problem is, they are not proper external links, they simply do fail that very often. Given that the real myspace of a subject is a piece of information which is encyclopaedic (but the content contained on the myspace may not be! (replace myspace with facebook, digg, twitter, youtube, &c. as required)), then promoting them out of the strict external links into a web-presence is not linkfarming per se, it is correct, and, in my opinion, encyclopaedic information. And no, I would not restrict it down to three or four. If a person is of an importance that they have and keep sites on 10 of these sites, then all should be linked (and not only because otherwise the war on these links would continue .. "is <subject>'s Myspace more important than <subject>'s Twitter?", no, they all contribute to the persons web-presense.

Lets face it, we should on the same merits discuss here the sisterlinks template! That also contributes to linkfarming, the links are to wikis, where the articles linked to sometimes hardly give any extra information (does it still link to wikiquote?), and as such could very well fail the external links guideline. Why do we link to them? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I consense with DB's position, and most of User:2005's. Milo 10:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to re-iterate one of the points that I made above: it is necessary to remember that all those services like myspace and facebook and twitter are commercial venues, and while they may be "free" to use, the companies behind those are, in the end, trying to make a buck. We try to avoid engaging such links as that serves to help advance their business and that is against the spirit of being an free content encyclopedia. Yes, we do link to commercial sites all the time: most movies have an IMDB link, we have links to most company web pages, and heck, much of our sourcing is through online commercial news sources. But, in these cases, these sites are provide unique resources that cannot be found elsewhere that is essential for a WP article on that topic. When an entity already has a website, a link to any other web presence is duplication, and no longer unique. Including those other web presence commercial services when they are not unique compared to a web site is pushing their commercial goals - to widely have people use their service. (This, in counterargument to Beetstra: sisterlinks to other Foundation-sponsored projects is in no way attempting to achieve commercial gain given their free nature alongside WP.)

Also, there's a "where does this end" arguemnt. If we do include twitter and the like, why not include their IM names? Their email addresses? Why stop in the electronic space and publish addresses and phones - that's their physical presence and just as "important" as their myspace and twitter pages at least to some people? I know there are people that have set up accounts on those services but keep them as private as the service lets them to interact with friends, but this is a very loose sense of privacy. We cannot assume that just because an entity has web presences besides a web page that they want people to actively know of their other presences. A web page is information that has to be pushed out and thus must be information the entity wants known, but the same is not true for the rest of these presences. We need to consider the privacy issues here as well. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To me this looks all strange:

• Any company with a web page, or any company that is hosting webpages, is in some way making money out of this. Even Wikipedia itself is in the end making money. The official webpage of a celebrity, which is not under scrutiny here, is there to make money. That it is a duplicate, yes, that is maybe true, but that is not an argument either, the official page does not necessary tell anything that we did not incorporate already, so may very well also be useless. Also, we don't disallow any commercial links, what, we even prever commercial, official sites over the 'free web hosted' sites (and the latter make again money in their way). This sounds as an argument to replace the content of the current blacklist with '.', so nothing can be linked anymore.
• Where does this end? Where does it begin. Maybe the celeb does not want her official webpage here. Maybe she does not even want a page here. It ends when it is personal information, the protection there has indeed its limits, but if the twitter is an open, publicly available piece of information (and well known), then we are not protecting the celeb by not putting it here, if the email is widely known and publicly available, then we are not protecting the celeb by not posting it. Besides, I do not expect crawlers to be looking for someones twitter to try and spam it, that will most certainly happen when the email address is posted. And then, if twitter is thé official webpage, then we do link it, why exclude it at the point that 'the celeb does not want to have it linked'. We can't assume that they want the official page linked either. If they want to protect their privacy issues (as I mentioned earlier, if Britney did not want us to know that she was having dessert with her father), then she should not post it on a publicly visible and well known Twitter stream. Also, the possibility of linking to the twitter does not mean that it has to be linked (which is now happening with {{twitter}} or directly anyway, if the celeb wants that information not linked, OTRS is thataway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guideline that discourages us from linking to commercial ventures. Nothing. The fact that places like Twitter/Myspace/Facebook make a buck is irrelevant to this discussion. 2005 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since a lot of the proposed links to be included in this template are currently discouraged, this seems backwards. First, seek a new consensus to include them, and then this proposal might make sense. Dlabtot (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Official links are exempted from avoidance. Milo 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing this template would do is make it so we can state more clearly that these links are never appropriate if they don't go in this box. I see this template as a way to allow what we allow, but to make it more plian that "no unofficial myspace/facebook/twitter links ever." 2005 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility, assuming that editors choose to use this template (at all, but specifically in the fashion you suggest). However, we can't actually impose this on anyone, so this guideline needs to wait for actual practice to catch up with Dirk's idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could choose to use the template. Do a cleanup round while we remove spam from external links, by inserting this template, and putting the websites it allows into it. Ehm, how do you mean that this guideline needs to wait for actual practice to catch up with this idea; as I described above, this template does not violate this guideline: official sites are allowed; and the official sites are generally linked because they are the official sites of the subject (even www.subject.com) not because they necessarily add more. Secondly, guidelines generally don't have to catch up with actual practice anyway, what happened to WP:BOLD and WP:IAR?

Note, that this could be formatted differently, more like 'external links' (though then we really get to the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY problem), make just a list out of it with small third-level headers or ';'-headers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not say that this template violates this guideline: IMO it doesn't (although, like most templates, it could be used to violate this guideline). I have no objection to any editor using this template.

However, since there's no existing practice, we can't re-write WP:EL to say, "Everybody should use this template", or even "Using this template is recommended" -- because the "everybody" that is the Wikipedia community of editors, does not use it at all (yet), and "the community" does not recommend it at all (yet). In the end, WP:EL tries to document what experienced editors actually do. So far, nobody's using it, because you just created it. In a few months (assuming that it survives the unfortunately premature TfD), we will know what the practice is, and can make informed choices about whether and how to present it in this document, based on the practical, simple consensus of looking at how good editors are (or aren't) using it. Until then, WP:EL should, at the very most, list it as a ==See also==; official ignorance of the template's existence is probably more appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Most changes to this guideline are done for prescriptive reasons, not descriptive ones. We can rewrite this guideline however we get consensus. In this case the content part of the guideline would not be rewritten, nor actual practice. What is proposed is a style formatting standardization. If there is a consensus here to do that, then other templates could be put up for deletion, and if there is consensus for that, then this page can reccomend that as the standard way to format such links. 2005 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of proceeding with the practice first, then updating the guidelines (to the extent that it is relevant) later. Right now this template can be used in conformance with the existing guidelines. As far as I can see, most of the objections to it are based on ideas that go beyond the existing guidelines to be even more restrictive: e.g., the idea that there should be only one official link even if the subject has multiple official sites/pages, or the idea that we should not link to commercial sites even when they aren't charging users directly. These statements are not in the current guidelines, and I doubt there is consensus to put them there. The most legitimate issue I've seen raised is the idea that the template "promotes" certain sites by having site-specific fields. I think this concern is overblown, because 1) the selection of fields reflects what sites are most commonly used by subjects and thus most likely to be linked, and 2) the template is in its formative stages and can be expanded to accommodate other popular sites if needed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The only concern that I can think of is the linkfarm problem. If we go to the end to include facebook, myspace, youtube, twitter, digg, blogspot, ...., and we encounter subjects that really have them all, hmm .. but then we could discuss that we set a maximum of links (somewhere defined in a guideline), and that then a talkpage-discussion can decide which to include, and which not (I would then suggest a parameter 'hide_<site>=yes' in the template, so that the twitter is in the template (per metadata idea below), but simply not displayed).

Another concern that is raised is 'there is no need to link to a Twitter feed, it hardly ever contains encyclopaedic information'. I would agree on that (see my Britney Spears example above), but would I be very incorrect if I would suggest: "although the official site of <subject> on <provider> does not contain encyclopaedic information which (generally) can be used to enhance the Wikipedia, let alone as a reference, having such a site is an encyclopaedic piece of information" (provided it is actually kept up to date or used by the subject &c.)?

For me, one of the big advantages is that this is machine readable, so it is a form of metadata, and programs (bots) can source the information, check it, and maybe even keep it up to date (which is actually a project which I am running here on wiki, so I have a conflict of interest here ;-) ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Garden sharing

I apologize in advance for posting a note here, yet as there is no external links noticeboard to go to I'm posting here to seek further input on how a particular section of the article Garden sharing floats with this guideline. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this section recently put in [29] has been challenged by two editors, yet one editor strongly feels it should be in here and has just called my removal of it "vandalism". I'd like to see where the consensus lies for sections such as this. I have posted relevant points of this guideline on the article's talk page, yet the user insisting on keeping them has given what I feel to be inadequate answers. Is he in the right here? Also, since this is a guideline board, where should I bring up questions such as this in the future. I'm thinking of developing an external links noticeboard and I think cases like this are prime examples of where it would be useful. ThemFromSpace 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

External links within an article body

I'm unclear about the best way to link to external sites that doesn't confuse readers and still complies with the Wikipedia guidelines. At the end of Soybean#Uses, there are references to two of the major soybean trade associations that have significant additional information on various types of soybean products, recent biodiesel research papers, etc. These associations aren't tied to any one particular company and so don't seem to violate any of the guidelines for an external link. However, to comply with the guideline on not having external links in the article body, I made the body references wiki links to the External References section, which in turn has the actual external links. Is this a good thing to do? It seems a bit confusing that a user would click one of the wiki links and get dumped at the end of the article without knowing why they are there. The other choice would be to create articles on the trade associations themselves, but I don't think this is really appropriate. They are notable for the extra information they provide to the topic of soybeans, but not really notable in their own right. I've read all the guidelines on external links and I can't find an answer to this dilemma. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are stuck on the notion that the names of these associations need to be linked to something when they appear in the article. This is not the case. The relevant content is what the article says: "ADM along with Dow Chemical Company, DuPont and Monsanto Company support the industry trade associations United Soybean Board and Soyfoods Association of North America." What you need within the body of the article is not necessarily links to the websites of these associations, but rather a reference to a source or sources that verifies what this sentence says. If the source is a page on the association website, that's fine, but it could also be a news article or something else. Put the information about your source inside a pair of reference tags (<ref>your source here</ref>) so it will show up in the References section. Don't worry about making the names of the organizations into links unless there is a Wikipedia article about them. --RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919: You don't need these "links". Their presence might also confuse some readers (who might, after all, expect to find a different article behind the names). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. These were red links when I started some significant cleanups on this article 2 months ago. I didn't feel they justified being red links and so I changed them to their present confusing state. Is this worthy of updating the external links guidelines so that others don't fall into the same trap? UncleDouggie (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline is clear. External links should not be in the body of the article. What you did was try to get around that, which is not good. Two of the ways to handle what you are trying to do fall under other guidelines. If they are notable, make articles. If the fact about them is notable enough to be mentioned in a reliable source, add the fact and source it. The final thing is if the sites qualify under this guideline, they can be linked in the external link section. There is no need though to link the external link section from within the article. 2005 (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Including my website link to wikipedia

Hello,

I want to include my website's link to wikipedia, please suggest me the best way to do My website name is http://www.health-prism.com and it is purely based on general health and wellbeing.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viyan11 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer - you don't. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Visit sites like DMOZ.org if you wish to promote your site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikia

Should wikia sites be included in external links? Just wondering as i personally think they borderline on fansites, so wondered what official was? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they generally should not. Only one or two Wikia meet WP:EL guidelines. The rest are fansites and not appropriate links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I cleared that up. What about TV.com being used for a source? Is this allowed? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, no, as TV.com is primarily user-edited, so it is not a reliable source. Only its editorial content is a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

okay, understood. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When you're considering questions about sourcing (=article content), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is probably your best place to ask a question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

didn't know that exsisted, so thanks! --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Libraries

I have stumbled into a debate that I think could do with some wider discussion. A few weeks ago I noticed that an editor was adding links to pages on the Newberry Library website to a large number of articles. When I followed many of the links I felt that they were inappropriate for the external links section of the articles. For example, a link was added to the Chicago article to this web page—as far as I can tell, the linked web page basically tells the reader that the Newberry Library has some photographs of the Chicago lakefront (the photos cannot be viewed via the website). After looking at a number of other such links I decided to revert the additions. This led to protests from the Newberry Library and a couple of other editors. You can read these disscussions on my talk page. I have suggested that, where the Newberry Library holds unique collections, it might be appropriate to mention the collections in the main article text with the web pages used as citations rather than just adding links to an external links section. Do other editors feel that these links are acceptable as part of the external links section of an article? Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the Chicago example you mention above, and also a case on the Mike Royko article discussed at length on your talk page, I'd say that they are two different situations. I think the Royko link is a good one. The library houses his personal papers, which is something unique related to the subject that readers might not otherwise know about. The Chicago link, on the other hand, is not as helpful. The Newberry Library is not the only place one could find pictures of the Chicago lakefront, nor is it surprising that a library in Chicago would have resources about that city. So the link isn't giving the reader anything unique or even telling them something unusually useful. I don't know what might be on other articles, but based on these two examples it seems like their links are a mixed bag. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are good arguments on both sides. As pointed out there is merit in some of the links, and we should avoid biting new editors. However, Newberry Library SC (talk · contribs) "Newberry Library Special Collections" is clearly a single purpose account with conflict of interest and user name problems. There are quite a lot of libraries, museums and galleries, and most have vast repositories: what would articles look like if every possible link were added? Of course we need to welcome new editors and should carefully evaluate every new link. However we also need to support the established editors who take the time to defend against the many promotional link additions that occur each day. A single purpose account does not carefully evaluate whether their link would help a particular article: they just quickly add links to lots of articles. That shifts the balance of power towards the spammer who can quickly add links, while the established editor is supposed to spend ten minutes evaluating each before removal. I support robust link removal with consideration of exceptional cases when editors consider that consideration worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two points here that should be clarified:

• The first is whether an editor should, summarily and without any review, revert all links by another editor when the links are clearly not the typical spam that we see every day. I revert a lot of external links which are clearly commercial spam and don't hesitate to revert all links added by an editor (newbie or not) if they are clearly inappropriate. The links in question here were links to the website of a major non-profit library and were links to specific pages dealing with holdings related to the exact topics for which they were cited. I am not suggesting that anyone should get a pass from examination or be exempt from the same rules that apply to other external links. In fact, I agree with Johnuniq that typically "A single purpose account does not carefully evaluate whether their link would help a particular article" but even a quick review indicates that was not the case here. The question here is whether an editor should spend a minute (certainly it would not take ten, as mentioned by Johnuniq) actually looking at a link when it is obvious that the there was a thoughtful process by the editor who inserted the link.
• More important, from a policy standpoint, is Jeremy's suggestion on his talk page that reference to a unique collection of materials should be incorporated into the text of the particular article, and that if it is not, then there is no need for a link. Take the Mike Royko example, where the Newberry Library houses his personal papers, a claim that no other library can make. As an editorial matter, the discussion of where his personal papers are housed may or may not fit within the Royko article. The same thing could probably be said of most, if not all, external links. For example, you could write "The White House maintains an official Web site at www.whitehouse.gov" and get rid of the listing under external links. If any editor believes that it works better to discuss the unique resources within the context of the article, he can make that change. He should NOT, however, simply delete a valid external link and not make the corresponding editorial change, in my opinion.

If this were simply a matter of an editor who is unfamiliar with the repository being cited, then it would concern me less. That could be attributed to be perhaps an uninformed editorial judgment. That happens. However, Jeremy says on his talk page that he is a user of the Newberry Library (as am I), so his decision reflects what I see as a real policy question - whether links to repositories of unique materials related to an article should be deleted simply because they were added to the external links section rather than discussed in the text of the article. I think not. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no knock-out argument either way: some links are good, some are bad. One or two instances of almost any link (even to an only slightly relevant cartoon) could very well be useful, therefore it is hard to have a rule that defines a "good" link. The problem is that links accumulate because some are genuinely useful, some are of interest to an editor, while most are added to promote sites. You made some good points, but you did not address the fact that there really are a lot of libraries and museums and galleries and other institutions that have large collections: it would not help to link to many different notable places holding information relevant to an article. The proper way to handle this case is to revert an SPA who mass adds links, then (if wanted by an established editor) someone should add useful information to the article using the link as a reference, or should make an explanation on the article talk page pointing out that the particular collection at the link is really useful and should be added. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the words used by Jeremy on his talk page the best:

"The web pages linked to did not provide access to the collections at Newberry, they just provided information about what the Newberry holds. My argument is that if these holdings are significant enough to be noteworthy then that should be mentioned in the article body, thus removing the need for an entry in the external links section; if the holdings are not significant enough to mention in the article body, I see no need for an external link." (emphasis added)

I support adding text to WP:EL along these lines. In the case of Chicago specifically, the link added would lead most readers to believe that following it would lead to a large collection of excellent photography. Upon clicking the link, they would be disappointed and confused, which would reflect negatively on Wikipedia as a whole. I don't buy the "online inventory" copout in the link. If the point was to proved provide useful information for researchers on available material, adding this fact to the article body would have been the way to go and would have made it clear that no online images were available. In the case of numerous collections, a separate section may be justified. It appears to me that the quality of articles was degraded using the excuse that the changes didn't violate WP:EL. The simple reply is of course to just say that the changes didn't improve Wikipedia for the reasons I have given. However, given that we already have 18 types of links to avoid, I see no harm in adding one more to make everyone's life easier in disputes. Editors can always still invoke WP:IAR when needed. We have other policies to deal with a SPA. I see no need to make any distinctions in WP:EL about the type of account/editor that new contributions are from. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A closely related matter is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Archives

I am inclined to agree that "external links" is in most cases a misleading heading. I suggest the wording "Research resources as separate from "external links." 69.92.10.161 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My preferences in order for these types of links:

1. Incorporate the reference into the article body. If it's not notable enough to be in the body, it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article.
2. Add an "Archives" section.
3. Add a "Research resources" section.

Perhaps option 2 or 3 could be permitted under special circumstances. I strongly oppose having a link in the EL section. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more justification is in order in light of a comment that such links are equivalent to a link to Amazon showing all books available on the subject of an article. I think the threshold should be that the material represents a primary source attributable to the subject of the article, in the same way that we permit references to autobiographies. I suggested option 2 as an alternative to make this distinction more clear. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of links are useful to Wikipedia but in most cases shouldn't be in the external links section of an article. The article mainspace is intended for people learning about the subject, correct? And the external links should lead a reader to other content that might help with that. But it seems that the archives are in many cases useful only for editors looking to find information that could be used to improve the article. In that case, these links should be on the talk page of the article rather than the main article space. -- Atama頭 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with UncleDouggie that pointers to archives should not be under external links unless the archive has put original material on line. (Some of them have started doing that, and external links make sense in that case.)

I have not used archives very often, but back in the early 80s I was working in the Houston area and visited the Texas City library. They had (and certainly still have) an extensive collection of articles and photographs about the 1947 disaster. Some of this material they organized into a web page [30] that is linked from the Wikipedia article. In this case it is fairly obvious that the library has archival materials. I don't think it should be objectionable or a COI violation for someone from that library to add a note that they have x inches of photos and articles about the disaster in their collection.

I am inclined to the more general wording "Research resources" because special collections and libraries also hold such material. But "Archives" is shorter.

As for putting such pointers on the talk page for the use of editors, Wikipedia rules don't permitted the use of original sources. So if there is any link at all, it is for those who are using Wikipedia and are interested in where they can find original materials.

There has been related discussion here [31] Keith Henson (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)