Talk:FMovies

This page was proposed for deletion by Hugsyrup (talk · contribs) on 23 May 2019.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

FMovies Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of keeping the link.

The reason I will keep re-adding the link to the homepage of FMovies is simple. It's educational by providing the correct information to those who want it. It's necessary for those who want to avoid fake links, and Wikipedia is a place where aiming for proper guidance is necessary. This link doesn't directly host any copyrighted content to pirate or download, but rather it's just a homepage similar to what The Pirate Bay has, and yet it's Wikipedia page has had obvious notoriety over the years alongside the fact the link to the main website is still there. Regardless of how you feel about the copyright rules of Wikipedia, it's been very clear with the specifics around direct links to copyrighted content & this homepage doesn't fall under that bracket.

Having a discussion about a website while refusing to include the direct link to it's homepage is absolutely unusual. It's educational for obvious reasons.

Stop censoring the link. QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's edited away again, I have it here:

<<Link redacted>>

QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link to copyright violation, see WP:COPYLINKS. Wikipedia is expressly not a link directory. It is not 'educational' to provide links to such places. Feel free to raise this at the proper noticeboard (that would be something like WP:ELN or WP:ANI), but edit warring over this as you have vowed to do is not a solution - it is obvious disruption. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support including the URL of the website. Note that WP:COPYLINKS expressly states, that "[i]n articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site." Also see other examples such as Sci-Hub, where the consensus among editors seems to be in favor of including the URL. Eigenbra (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible copyright violations somewhere on the site, the whole site is copyvio. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? The exception still allows this. WP:NOTCENSORED is also relevant here. We link to The Pirate Bay for example; no reason this is different. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the exception means what it says. Torrent hashes are different in significant ways from embedded video streams. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the exception means what it says. There are copyright violations on the site. It's still acceptable to include a link to the site. Just because there's a lot of copyright violations doesn't mean the exception doesn't apply. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyright violations somewhere on the site is not nearly as broad as the interpretation you are presenting here. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the exception is to include the link of copyright violating websites. It does not put a cap on how many violations can be on the website. If it was as narrow as you think, it would be phrased as such (e.g. "a link may be included if there is some violating content").

And if you think about the point of this exception, and the WP:COPYLINK rule, it's clear that the purpose is to prevent us from directly linking to infringing works, not to deprive our readers of relevant information about the articles they're reading. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it were as broad as you think, it would be phrased as such (e.g. "an official link may be included even to sites composed entirely of copyright violations"). Wikipedia expressly isn't a link directory, so the omission of a link here or there is not a problem. "Relevant information" is an especially weak argument. A list of links to local plumbers is relevant to the article on plumbing, but we don't include them. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "possible copyright violations somewhere on the site" covers that! You also haven't responded to my point at all about why the rule is there, which can help with understanding if the text is ambiguous. Nor to my point about how the status quo is inclusion at almost every other relevant page, so clearly my interpretation is the one editors are using in practice. Nor my point about how my interpretation is more in line with WP:NOTCENSORED. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you really arguing that a link to a website isn't relevant to our article on that website? C'mon. This is included on nearly every article we have on websites because it's obviously relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "possible copyright violations somewhere on the site" covers that! So you've said, but the plain reading of those words indicates that there is some level of copyright violation that is unacceptable. I do not agree with your interpretation of why the exception is there, of course. I rather think it is there so we can link to sites hosting user generated content and the like, which may occasionally contain copyvio without being the focus of the site in question. Also are you really arguing that a link to a website isn't relevant to our article on that website? No, I am arguing that many sorts of relevant information are not included on Wikipedia for various reasons. The encyclopedia isn't indiscriminate, so the mere fact that something is relevant does not mean it must be included. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the plain reading of those words indicates that there is some level of copyright violation that is unacceptable

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't.

The encyclopedia isn't indiscriminate, so the mere fact that something is relevant does not mean it must be included.

Sure, but you haven't presented a good case for exclusion. Does removing this link benefit our readers? No. It makes this article unambiguously worse. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flat denials and 'you haven't presented a good case' aren't much of an argument. How do I respond? We're just going in circles at this point. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say all this but for some reason you won't let the page get taken down despite it being about the said website that is "inappropriate" if it comes to linking it. What difference does it make if we include the link to the landing page of FMovies? If you truly want Wikipedia to not indulge in matters regarding piracy it would just be entirely removed such as the individual who muted me for edit warring mentioned. If it's within enough of a grey area to have the most key portion of knowledge censored— which is the URL itself, then why have the article up at all? But that's the thing. You are in the wrong because Wikipedia has willingly allowed for 123Movies to have it's URLs documented & The Pirate Bay article to remain functional respectively for years. Popcorn Time even had it's website linked where you could download the software on Android & Windows respectively at one time if I remember. So what makes FMovies so much different? QuantumZazzy (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say all this but for some reason you won't let the page get taken down To be clear, whether the page is deleted or not is not up to me. I am not blocking deletion, no one could do that single-handed. I personally don't think that any option under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies, but if you read that policy and feel differently have at it. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I don't want it deleted, but if we are to go by what you keep saying that keeps us from adding the link, then the article shouldn't exist at all if we have to omit important details such as the main URL QuantumZazzy (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to my point about how the status quo is inclusion at almost every other relevant page WP:OTHERSTUFF. MrOllie (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes because this is a... AfD discussion? OSE isn't relevant here, and common practice on the site is relevant for indicating some level of consensus. Clearly other people do not share your view on COPYLINK, or the status quo wouldn't be inclusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that the principle applies in general. MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't. You're just wrong. Maybe read WP:SSE, which rejects your view on this. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The long version, of course, is that you haven't established that those other articles aren't the ones in the wrong, or that those other articles are actually comparable to this situation. The Pirate bay is a copyvio site as well, sure. But there are significant differences between hosting bittorrent hashes and embedded video streams. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not going to convince you that your interpretation of WP:COPYLINK is incorrect, if

common practice not supporting your view
the actual text not supporting your view
no other editors in this discussion supporting your view

is not enough to convince you. What would you be satisfied with? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to reject the premise of the question, since I do not believe your bullet points are established facts. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not happy (despite this discussion being 3:1 against your interpretation), then we should probably get more eyes on this discussion (or clarify COPYLINK in general). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to the discussion but I am fully in support of what Elli's articulated here. Our policies obviously permit and encourage (and, one might argue, even require) that we include critical information in our articles.

In an article about a website, the URL is about as critical a piece of information as one could imagine.

Indeed, we have URLs for goatse.cx (a photograph of a man putting both fists inside his gaping anus), Iron March (a neo-Nazi forum whose members committed hate crimes), Hezbollah (a group designated as a terrorist organization by 22 countries), the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (a totalitarian dictatorship and rogue nuclear state).

Consensus across the project for the last twenty years has been robustly in favor of including URLs in hundreds of thousands of articles, with exceptions that can be counted with fingers. I aver, here, that your interpretation of linking policy conflicts with both its spirit and its letter. jp×g 🗯️ 12:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, would you be able to view the latest revision I had made before it was changed and remove from the WIkipedia blacklist the links to the archive.com Wayback Machine archive showing the URL change, as well as the current URL for Fmovies itself? QuantumZazzy (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I won't immediately edit the page again, I just would like the links removed from the blacklist QuantumZazzy (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the individual who added the information for September, October & December 2023 in the article. Sadly key information such as the URL change under "In September 2023" & respective proof was blacklisted & completely removed. An archive of my most recent & reformed revision can be seen here in case it gets deleted. QuantumZazzy (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really accurate to say the site is defunct?

The article says "was" and states that the status is "defunct": however, many, many websites copying the original still exist. A search on Yandex quickly reveals so. On the 123Movies page, it says exactly that: websites imitating the brand remain active Greek Architect (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate sites always have copycats, but the existence of an unrelated site that copied brand elements doesn't mean that the original didn't go defunct. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]