Talk:Pyramid (solitaire)

External Links

I propose that some of the external Links that have been removed by 2005 and RRay be restored. Several of the links do in fact meet WP:EL guidelines and are valid. The links that were removed that are indeed valid include:

• World of Solitaire - Pyramid Free, web based solitaire that does not require Flash nor Java
• Play Pyramid Solitaire

This issue has been debated quite a bit over here: Talk:Spider (solitaire) Many users over there including myself have listed clear reasons why the links do not violate the WP:EL guidelines. The majority of users there feel that the links are useful, not redundant, do not violate any of the WP:EL guidelines and thus should be allowed on the page.

I hereby propose the links stated above be restored.Sembiance (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The external link to worldofsolitaire.com was added by the owner of the website. That's a violation of the WP:EL guidelines right there. After I asked the user to stop edit warring and being rude in his edit notes, Sembiance advised me that he wasn't interested in contributing to the Wikipedia in any other capacity if the links to his website weren't restored. A link to the appropriate DMOZ category would be a better choice for an external link here anyway. At any rate, the link doesn't provide much value since it's just a site where you can play a solitaire game. It should not be re-added. Rray (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not added the World of Solitaire link back into the page because as Rray points out that is a violation of the 'Conflict of Interest' section in the WP:EL guidelines. What it suggests very clearly:

• "If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

This is exactly what I have done in this case.

Also, Rray you are incorrect in your baseless assertions that these links 'do not provide value'. They may not provide value to 'you' but it certainly provides value to Wikipedia readers. It also meets all WP:EL guidelines for inclusion.

In addition I am well within my right to go and add the green felt link as that is not my site and thus avoids any conflict of interest issues.

I do get frustrated with Wikipedia editors like yourself and 2005 who reduce content of pages to such a degree as to render Wikipedia far less useful even when it's clear based on discussions of the topic and commentary from other Wikipedia users that you are in the wrong. Due to this frustration I may have posted comments in previous posts that I should not have posted.

Regardless, I am confident now that with the inclusion of additional editors these useful links will end up being restored.Sembiance (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A conflict of interest does not mean it cannot be used. It simply means that the link should be verified to not conflict with any other issues, and that it is neutral and beneficial. I see no reason to remove this or any other link as long as it doesn't voilate WP:EL. Can you tell me specifically how the link is in violation, other than being added by the "wrong person". If I add it, does that negate the issue? Bytebear (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Like how these links were spammed elsewhere they meet no criteria for linking, and violate the external links guideline. Given the ridiculous amount of spam and in many of the Wikipedia solitaire articles, and the similarity of the play online sites, a Dmoz link should be added instead of other links, just as the external links guideline suggests. 2005 (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as spam, as long as other links are also allowed, and no preferential treatment for one site over another is used. I look at the links as a parallel to IMDB for movie related articles. IMDB certainly has more violations of WP:EL than World of Solitaire. And yet it has been "spammed" all over Wikipedia as well. Bytebear (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)