User talk:Evdz

Hello, Evdz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Judoka videos

Actually, you could probably post a few links and mention if someone questions it that you brought it up on the project talk page. Or ask specific editors currently active in the project: this guy, for one. Daniel Case (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Please consider the purpose of external links stated at WP:LINKSTOAVOID which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The article is meant to provide information about the topic, and external links are meant to provide additional information not included in the article. I don't believe that the videos provide any additional "information" in the encyclopaedic sense.

You need to also consider the Wikipedia policies at WP:LINKS

"Links should be kept to a minimum." (this is relevant because (a) does it really add to the article (as per my comment above), and (b) if judovision was to be included then by the same argument, so could judoinfo, youtube and google videos as well.)
"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. 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 in line with the conflict of interest guidelines." (this one pretty much rules you out, unless you received good consensus to go ahead.)

Also read WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TEXT

People can Google "judo videos" where they will see that they can access videos from judoinfo, judovision, youtube in the top few hits. If a judo video site that was better than yours were to be created in the future, Googling would have it to the top of the list, whereas by putting judovision links across multiple articles, there would be the issue have having to edit every article to link to the better site.

We have links to six judo video sites (including yours) at Judo#External_links.

I did link to an MMA video on YouTube once because it provided the only proof of a fight's outcome - the information was not listed in the official records that were being cited by Wikipedia.

User:Nate1481 is a good person to get an opinion from. I think that he monitors this page, so let's see what he thinks. --David from Downunder (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank you for your response. Just to clarify, I would not be adding 'general' links which would be similar to a googling the term Judo Videos. I would add a link only showing specific fights for the judoka in the relevant article.

It is my opinion that such links do provide additional information, that cannot be included in the article. Same as a picture says more than a thousand words, the same (and more so) applies to videos.

In personal experience, and I feel this applies to all people reading an article, when I read about a Judoka winning X consecutive world or olympic championships, my first thought is 'wow, I wonder what that must have looked like in action'.. Judokas like Koga, Nomura, Geesink, Ruska, Douillet, Yamashita etc cannot be described as well as a video would. Thats why I feel that such links will provide that bit of extra information in an encyclopaedic sense, that cannot be added to an article any other way.

Regarding 6 other video sites: All have some videos, but none have the amount, and the detail (fighters in the clip, wich exact tournament) as Judovision, only when they have copied the information ;) Reason why I mention that, is that none of them are able to add specific links for specific Judokas.

Thank you very much for your answer! I hope Nate1481 will come back with his thoughts too (and maybe I convinced you a bit with this extra info)..

Evdz (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding specific links to the relevant video should be fine, but it would be better to embed the videos if the copyright on each one allowed. Also including them as references would look better to me.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Nate1481, I'll add specific links, and will list them as references.

Thanks for your time and effort guys!

Regards Evdz (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just do one or two representative pages first and wait to get some feedback from Nate and me? It might save some time if either of us has any suggestions as to style. --David from Downunder (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.. 2 pages with slightly different text with the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Douillet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Quellmalz

Does that look ok, and which one would you prefer? All suggestions you have are more than welcome!

Evdz (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one doesn't really conform to WP:MOS. Also it has the problem of either always remaining a one line section, or inviting more video links which are probably not desirable. Modifying your second example, I prefer this:

Videos of Udo Quellmalz in action (judovision.org)

But what about Nate's input? Nate, I couldn't really understand what you were suggesting. Maybe you could modify an article to demonstrate what you mean. --David from Downunder (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Videos

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Ben Spijkers, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.

As suggested above, we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. Stop adding these videos now, and discuss with a wikiproject or suggest them on the talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted on a wikiproject page. Please wait for more input there, or try to achieve consensus with other editors first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to actually add content to the articles by extracting information from the videos (and other sources) and add the external source as a reference (see WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:FOOT). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I discussed, and agreed on, the links with David from Downunder, Daniel Case, Nate1481 from the Wiki Martial Arts project. -- Evdz (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted that discussion, sorry. Still I think the links can be used better (videos can show techniques etc), and taking care that we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my reversions, again sorry for the misunderstanding. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, if you have suggestions as to the format of the link, please share!

Wiki is definately not a link farm, but the only reason these video links are posted, is to bring an extra bit of info to the articles that cannot be put in words.

Thanks, Evdz (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree—it seems to be against Wikipedia policy—I just don't disagree strongly. Please follow up with Nate about his suggestion. I didn't understand it. Cheers. --David from Downunder (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood than, as you discussed the way of linking with me, I assumed you were ok with it.

I'm not sure on what more info you need from Nate though, I think is input is quite clear: specific links (so not all to the homepage or something) and listed under external links/references instead of under a separate header called videos.

To be 100% sure: is it ok with you when I place the links?

Thanks Evdz (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who said not to have a separate section called videos. Also, you shouldn't be putting them under References except in circumstances where it is explicitly backing up material referenced in the article. That would be a very rare situation indeed. As I mentioned before, I did that once. Links like the ones you have been adding should go under External links.

Just because I think that adding those links is against Wikipedia policy does not mean that I am not going to help you insert them in the most appropriate place.

You left out what Nate said: "it would be better to embed the videos" where possible.

Cheers. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[[[Ude_garami#Americana|This] might be what Nate was talking about, and this is a perfect example of where it is acceptable and desirable to include a reference to a video: this is truly an example of bringing "an extra bit of info to the articles that cannot be put in words". Also, note at the bottom of that page how a heading is used to separate out videos. I introduced similar sub-headings here. Without a subheading, I suggest you always list your video link last for consistency. The official homepage of the subject and other major external links tend to get listed first. Also, in my edit here, two of the three links used as citations are links to YouTube videos. --David from Downunder (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding is not really an option, for 2 reasons. Embedding a youtube clip instead of linking to the Judovision pages, causes most information to be gone (tournament, Judokas in clip). Next to that, for example Kosei Inoue is shown in over 30 clips. One external link, showing the detailed overview of his fights, would be better than 30 embeds.

It's basicly the same external links as the 'factfile' links to Judoinside.com. Evdz (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I presume that Nate was asking you to embed a link wherever possible to provide real additional info to the text. You could still add the links to the list of videos even when an embedded video appeared.

I don't know what you mean by the 'factfile' --David from Downunder (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel Case didn't agree either. In fact, he blocked you for adding those links and later asked you discuss it with others. Please do not misrepresent other editors. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of this page, Daniel Case writes: "you could probably post a few links and mention if someone questions it that you brought it up on the project talk page".. I don't think that can be misinterpreted? Evdz (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting what you could probably try adding a few links to test the waters is 'not the same thing as agreeing that it was acceptable to add judovision links to all the articles. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]