This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Contrary to the editors claim these are not "blogs, fansites" etc. They are the two official twitter accounts of teh race. The english account is significant as that carries full live coverage of every stage of the race. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is very clear that aditional links are permitted if they are not linked to from teh main website or if they are significant. This is part of an ongoing edit war by user: Beetstra who appears to be on a one man edit war to remove social media links from wikipedia despite numerous complaints Dimspace (talk)
WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is very clear "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The twitter accounts provide significantly different coverage in that the english language account (which is official) is the only source of constant, live, in race coverage of every single stage. That contrasts with the website which is purely race reports, results, stage profiles etc. Dimspace (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the race long over now? Historical reports are certainly full of information, but given hindsight, a unified summary of results is the main encyclopediac content IMO. An archive of play-by-play live coverage seems quite secondary to support it. And how is a Romanian twitter equivalent(?) of the English one additionally useful for the English wikipedia (compare to WP:NONENGEL)? DMacks (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not contrary to any claims. Yes, they are official websites of the subject. However, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances..." and "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." .. you claim that there is significant unique content (which I doubt, we are not providing a news server, if the content is significant then it is covered elsewhere and may even already be in the article, twitters are rarely rising to that level), but the English link (which may be the most significant for the English language Wikipedia over the Romanian) is, prominently, linked from the main website.
Regarding the 'one man edit war' - I have removed it first and did not see your re-insertion. The second removal was by another editor, User:Stesmo. That refutes completely that claim. And even if it were true, see again our policies and guidelines - they show the pillar based consensus that I am implementing here. If you think that that should change, I guess an attempt to change the guideline at WT:EL may be in place. These links fail our inclusion standard until that moment, unless you can show that there is significant consensus to implement that per WP:ELBURDEN. Until then, the links are out. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
