As per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed links should be excluded by default until there is consensus for inclusion. @Sundayclose: please explain what unique value you feel the disputed link provides when there is already a link providing a clearer image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- The link to F.A.G. provides a better image. WP:RSP#Find A Grave allows for some uses of the website, so the requirement for consensus does not always apply. Sundayclose (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Sundayclose, the link from the other source is objectively better - the one at the disputed link is blurry - and you are not correct about the consensus requirement. Whenever a link is disputed, consensus is required to include it, even if there are excellent reasons to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I disagree about the quality of the images. "Objectively" means no personal evaluation, and each of us has our own evaluation of image quality. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Regardless of your personal evaluation, the quality is not so much better to justify inclusion of the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Each of us has an opinion. Yours doesn't carry more weight than mine. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Which is why we have ELBURDEN as a tiebreaker: if we can't arrive at a consensus then the link is excluded by default. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- It's not a "tiebreaker". My last comment unless you say something new or someone else comments. Sundayclose (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- As we have been unable to reach at a consensus, I have removed the link per WP:NOCON. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
